Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Reconstr Microsurg Open 2019; 04(01): e1-e8
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678702
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Soft Tissue Augmentation Using Free Tissue Transfer for Artificial Bone Infection or Skull Bone Sequestration after Neurosurgery

Masayuki Okochi
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Teikyo University, Itabashi-Ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Hiromi Okochi
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yamanashi University, Chuo, Yamanashi, Japan
,
Takao Sakaba
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Fuskushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
,
Kazuki Ueda
4   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Jusendo General Hospital, Koriyama, Fukushima, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

24 September 2018

27 November 2018

Publication Date:
21 February 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background We performed soft tissue augmentation using free flap and secondary cranioplasty combined with soft tissue augmentation for cases with artificial or autologous skull exposure after neurosurgery. We evaluated operative result and the relationship between the cause of infection and the infected site.

Methods Twenty-four patients were included. Data included age, sex, indications for neurosurgery, causes of infection, infection sites, medical comorbidities, time between last neurosurgery and reconstruction, types of reconstruction, and types of secondary cranioplasty.

Results The causes of neurosurgery were subarachnoid hemorrhage (n = 9), trauma (n = 5), brain tumor (n = 5), brain hemorrhage (n = 3), and meningioma (n = 3). The mean size of infected bone was 67.3 cm2. The mean duration between last neurosurgery and reconstruction was 5.2 years. Types of infected bone were artificial bone (n = 19) and autologous skull (n = 6). The soft tissue augmentation was performed using latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (n = 14) and anterolateral thigh flap (n = 10). The infection sites were the frontal (n = 13), temporal (n = 4), parietal (n = 4), and occipital regions (n = 4). Bone defects included the frontal sinus in all patients who had infections in the frontal region. The patients who had infections in non-frontal region received multiple surgeries (n = 7). Nine patients received secondary cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite block.

Conclusion To achieve good results during soft tissue augmentation, the cause of infection should be eliminated.

Keywords

scalp reconstruction - neurosurgery - cranioplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Kourbeti IS, Vakis AF, Ziakas P. , et al. Infections in patients undergoing craniotomy: risk factors associated with post-craniotomy meningitis. J Neurosurg 2015; 122 (05) 1113-1119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Blomstedt GC. Infections in neurosurgery: a retrospective study of 1143 patients and 1517 operations. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1985; 78 (3-4): 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bobinski L, Koskinen L-OD, Lindvall P. Complications following cranioplasty using autologous bone or polymethylmethacrylate--retrospective experience from a single center. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013; 115 (09) 1788-1791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C. , et al. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2017; 41: 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jonkergouw J, van de Vijfeijken SE, Nout E. , et al. Outcome in patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: a two-center cohort study of 40 implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44 (09) 1266-1272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fong AJ, Lemelman BT, Lam S, Kleiber GM, Reid RR, Gottlieb LJ. Reconstructive approach to hostile cranioplasty: a review of the University of Chicago experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (08) 1036-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tsang AC, Hui VK, Lui WM, Leung GK. Complications of post-craniectomy cranioplasty: risk factor analysis and implications for treatment planning. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (05) 834-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brommeland T, Rydning PN, Pripp AH, Helseth E. Cranioplasty complications and risk factors associated with bone flap resorption. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2015; 23: 75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ransom ER, Jacono AA. Double-opposing rotation-advancement flaps for closure of forehead defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (05) 342-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Umman P, Pillai VG, Abraham PM, Varkey RG. Rotation flap closure of moderate size scalp defects - technique and outcome. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10 (11) PD21-PD23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gundeslioglu AO, Selimoglu MN, Doldurucu T, Bekerecioglu M. Reconstruction of large anterior scalp defects using advancement flaps. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23 (06) 1766-1769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Papadopoulos O, Karypidis D, Moustaki M. , et al. Double scalping flap: a versatile technique in scalp reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20 (05) 1484-1491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Baumeister S, Peek A, Friedman A, Levin LS, Marcus JR. Management of postneurosurgical bone flap loss caused by infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (06) 195e-208e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yoshioka N. Versatility of the latissimus dorsi free flap during the treatment of complex postcraniotomy surgical site infections. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (06) e1355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hierner R, van Loon J, Goffin J, van Calenbergh F. Free latissimus dorsi flap transfer for subtotal scalp and cranium defect reconstruction: report of 7 cases. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (05) 425-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Richards M. Reconstruction of an extensive scalp defect. Br J Plast Surg 1998; 51 (08) 649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tanaka Y, Matsumoto K, Song S, Tajima S, Ohmura T. Reconstruction of a cranial bone defect with hydroxyapatite and free flap transfer. J Craniofac Surg 1997; 8 (02) 141-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sakamoto Y, Takahara T, Ota Y. , et al. MRI analysis of chronological changes in free-flap volume in head and neck reconstruction by volumetry. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 2014; 39 (01) 44-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bailey BN, Godfrey AM. Latissimus dorsi muscle free flaps. Br J Plast Surg 1982; 35 (01) 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wolff KD, Stiller D. Functional aspects of free muscle transplantation: atrophy, reinnervation, and metabolism. J Reconstr Microsurg 1992; 8 (02) 137-142
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ozkan O, Coskunfirat OK, Ozgentas HE, Derin A. Rationale for reconstruction of large scalp defects using the anterolateral thigh flap: structural and aesthetic outcomes. J Reconstr Microsurg 2005; 21 (08) 539-545
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chang KP, Lai CH, Chang CH, Lin CL, Lai CS, Lin SD. Free flap options for reconstruction of complicated scalp and calvarial defects: report of a series of cases and literature review. Microsurgery 2010; 30 (01) 13-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lutz BS, Wei FC, Chen HC, Lin CH, Wei CY. Reconstruction of scalp defects with free flaps in 30 cases. Br J Plast Surg 1998; 51 (03) 186-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tenna S, Brunetti B, Aveta A, Poccia I, Persichetti P. Scalp reconstruction with superficial temporal artery island flap: clinical experience on 30 consecutive cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (05) 660-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Safavi-Abbasi S, Komune N, Archer JB. , et al. Surgical anatomy and utility of pedicled vascularized tissue flaps for multilayered repair of skull base defects. J Neurosurg 2016; 125 (02) 419-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yoshioka N. Modified cranialization and secondary cranioplasty for frontal sinus infection after craniotomy: technical note. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2014; 54 (09) 768-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Malcolm JG, Rindler RS, Chu JK, Grossberg JA, Pradilla G, Ahmad FU. Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 33: 39-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Eppley BL. Hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: I. Experimental results from a new quick-setting material. J Craniofac Surg 2003; 14 (01) 85-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Reddy S, Khalifian S, Flores JM. , et al. Clinical outcomes in cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (04) 864-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lindner D, Schlothofer-Schumann K, Kern BC, Marx O, Müns A, Meixensberger J. Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial. J Neurosurg 2017; 126 (01) 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, Robiony M, Alfieri A, Parodi PC. Cranioplasty: review of materials. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27 (08) 2061-2072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rosen HM. Porous, block hydroxyapatite as an interpositional bone graft substitute in orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83 (06) 985-990 , discussion 991–993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Rodriguez ED, Stanwix MG, Nam AJ, St Hilaire H, Simmons OP, Manson PN. Definitive treatment of persistent frontal sinus infections: elimination of dead space and sinonasal communication. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (03) 957-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hata N, Hisada K, Torisu R, Suzuki SO, Kameda K, Sasaki T. Foreign body granuloma associated with dura-cranioplasty after resection of convexity meningioma with extracranial extension: case report. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2011; 51 (03) 236-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Erickson DL, Seljeskog EL, Chou SN. Suction-irrigation treatment of craniotomy infections. Technical note. J Neurosurg 1974; 41 (02) 265-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar