Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
Cranioplasty after craniectomy in pediatric patients-a systematic review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klieverik Vita M, Miller Kai J, Singhal Ash, Han Kuo Sen, Woerdeman Peter A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Complications following cranioplasty with either autografts or cranial implants are commonly reported in pediatric patients. However, data regarding cranioplasty strategies, complications and long-term outcomes are not well described. This study systematically reviews the literature for an overview of current cranioplasty practice in children.
METHODS: A systematic review of articles published from inception to July 2018 was performed. Studies were included if they reported the specific use of cranioplasty materials following craniectomy in patients younger than 18 years of age, and had a minimum follow-up of at least 1 year.
RESULTS: Twenty-four manuscripts, describing a total of 864 cranioplasty procedures, met the inclusion criteria. The age of patients in this aggregate ranged from 1 month to 20 years and the weighted average was 8.0 years. The follow-up ranged from 0.4 months to 18 years and had a weighted average of 40.4 months. Autologous bone grafts were used in 484 cases (56.0%). Resorption, infection and/or hydrocephalus were the most frequently mentioned complications. In this aggregate group, 61 patients needed a revision cranioplasty. However, in 6/13 (46%) papers studying autologous cranioplasties, no data was provided on resorption, infection and revision cranioplasty rates. Cranial implants were used in 380 cases (44.0%), with custom-made porous hydroxyapatite being the most commonly used material (100/380, 26.3%). Infection and migration/fracturing/loosening were the most frequently documented complications. Eleven revision cranioplasties were reported. Again, no data was reported on infection and revision cranioplasty rates, in 7/16 (44%) and 9/16 (56%) of papers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review illuminates that whether autografts or cranial implants are used, postcranioplasty complications are quite common. Beyond this, the existing literature does not contain well documented and comparable outcome parameters, suggesting that prospective, long-term multicenter cohort studies are needed to be able to optimize cranioplasty strategies in children who will undergo cranioplasty following craniectomy.
METHODS: A systematic review of articles published from inception to July 2018 was performed. Studies were included if they reported the specific use of cranioplasty materials following craniectomy in patients younger than 18 years of age, and had a minimum follow-up of at least 1 year.
RESULTS: Twenty-four manuscripts, describing a total of 864 cranioplasty procedures, met the inclusion criteria. The age of patients in this aggregate ranged from 1 month to 20 years and the weighted average was 8.0 years. The follow-up ranged from 0.4 months to 18 years and had a weighted average of 40.4 months. Autologous bone grafts were used in 484 cases (56.0%). Resorption, infection and/or hydrocephalus were the most frequently mentioned complications. In this aggregate group, 61 patients needed a revision cranioplasty. However, in 6/13 (46%) papers studying autologous cranioplasties, no data was provided on resorption, infection and revision cranioplasty rates. Cranial implants were used in 380 cases (44.0%), with custom-made porous hydroxyapatite being the most commonly used material (100/380, 26.3%). Infection and migration/fracturing/loosening were the most frequently documented complications. Eleven revision cranioplasties were reported. Again, no data was reported on infection and revision cranioplasty rates, in 7/16 (44%) and 9/16 (56%) of papers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review illuminates that whether autografts or cranial implants are used, postcranioplasty complications are quite common. Beyond this, the existing literature does not contain well documented and comparable outcome parameters, suggesting that prospective, long-term multicenter cohort studies are needed to be able to optimize cranioplasty strategies in children who will undergo cranioplasty following craniectomy.