AccScience Publishing / AN / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.36922/an.247
Cite this article
148
Download
1956
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
REVIEW

Outcomes of surgical management and implant consideration for depressed skull fractures: A systematic review

Andrew Nguyen1 Akshay Reddy1 Ramy Sharaf1 Lauren Ladehoff2 Michael Joseph Diaz1 Brandon Lucke-Wold3*
Show Less
1 College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
2 College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
3 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Advanced Neurology 2023, 2(1), 247 https://doi.org/10.36922/an.247
Submitted: 2 November 2022 | Accepted: 16 January 2023 | Published: 3 February 2023
© 2023 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Background: Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with high mortality and morbidity. Depressed skull fractures (DSFs) are a subset of fractures characterized by either direct or indirect brain damage, compressing brain tissue. Recent advances in implant use during primary reconstruction surgeries have shown to be effective. In this systematic review, we assess differences in titanium mesh, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants, autologous pericranial grafts, and methyl methacrylate (PMMA) implants for DSF treatment.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from their inception to September 2022 to retrieve articles regarding the use of various implant materials for depressed skull fractures. Inclusion criteria included studies specifically describing implant type/material within treatment of depressed skull fractures, particularly during duraplasty. Exclusion criteria were studies reporting only non-primary data, those insufficiently disaggregated to extract implant type, those describing treatment of pathologies other than depressed skull fractures, and non-English or cadaveric studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess for presence of bias in included studies.

Results: Following final study selection, 18 articles were included for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Of the 177 patients (152 males), mean age was 30.8 years with 82% implanted with autologous graft material, and 18% with non-autologous material. Data were pooled and analyzed with respect to the total patient set, and additionally stratified into those treated through autologous and non-autologous implant material. There were no differences between the two cohorts regarding mean time to encounter, pre-operative Glasgow coma scale (GCS), fracture location, length to cranioplasty, and complication rate. There were statistically significant differences in post-operative GCS (p < 0.0001), LOS (p = 0.0274), and minimum follow-up time (p = 0.000796).

Conclusion: Differences in measurable post-operative outcomes between implant groups were largely minimal or none. Future research should aim to probe these basic results deeper with a larger, non-biased sample.

Keywords
Autologous graft
Non-autologous graft
Implant material
Cranioplasty
Depressed skull fracture
Duraplasty
Funding
None.
References
[1]

Abdelmalik PA, Draghic N, Ling GS, 2019, Management of moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Transfusion, 59(S2): 1529–1538. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.15171

[2]

Ahmad S, Afzal A, Rehman L, et al., 2018, Impact of depressed skull fracture surgery on outcome of head injury patients. Pak J Med Sci, 34: 130–134. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.341.13184 

[3]

Ali L, Badar A, 2021, Management of depressed skull fracture. JSMC, 11: 30–33. https://doi.org/10.52206/jsmc.2021.11.1.30-33

[4]

Prakash A, Harsh V, Gupta U, et al., 2018, Depressed fractures of skull: An institutional series of 453 patients and brief review of literature. Asian J Neurosurg, 13: 222–226. https://doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_168_16

[5]

Kumar S, Nahar S, Sahana D, et al., 2022, A prospective comparative evaluation of surgery and conservative treatment for compound depressed skull fractures. World Neurosurg, 164: e1281–e1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.019

[6]

Márquez-García JC, Granados-Sáncheza AM, Moreno- Arango I, 2022, Isolated depressed fracture of the inner table of the skull. Interdiscip Neurosurg, 30: 101604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inat.2022.101604 

[7]

Marbacher S, Andres RH, Fathi AR, et al., 2008, Primary reconstruction of open depressed skull fractures with titanium mesh. J Craniofac Surg, 19: 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181534ae8

[8]

Eom KS, 2020, Single-stage reconstruction with titanium mesh for compound comminuted depressed skull fracture. J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 63: 631–639. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2019.0181

[9]

Hitoshi Y, Yamashiro S, Yoshida A, et al., 2020, Cranial reconstruction with titanium mesh for open depressed skull fracture in children: Reports of two cases with long-term observation. Kurume Med J, 66: 77–80. https://doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.MS661011

[10]

Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, et al., 2017, A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty. J Neurosurg, 126: 81–90. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.12.JNS152004 

[11]

Dunisch P, Walter J, Sakr Y, et al., 2013, Risk factors of aseptic bone resorption: A study after autologous bone flap reinsertion due to decompressive craniotomy. J Neurosurg, 118: 1141–1147. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.1.JNS12860

[12]

Khan A, Shrivastava N, Pal SS, 2018, Primary reconstruction of depressed skull fracture. Int Surg J, 5: 1802–1806. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181586

[13]

Darwish M, Nanous WZ, 2021, Cranioplasty using titanium mesh versus acrylic bone cement: Short-term outcomes and complications. Benha Med J (BMFJ), 38: 146–154. https://doi.org/10.21608/BMFJ.2021.144804

[14]

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al., 2016, PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 75: 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

[15]

Wells GA, Sheda B, O’Connell D, et al., 2021, The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available from:https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ oxford.asp.

[16]

AbdelFatah MA, 2016, Management of bone fragments in nonmissile compound depressed skull fractures. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 158: 2341–2345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2976-0

[17]

Anehosur V, Sahana MS, Kumar N, 2022, Grossly depressed frontal bone fracture in a paediatric patient: A case report. J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 21: 442–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-020-01456-2

[18]

Ballestero MF, De Oliveira RS, 2019, Closed depressed skull fracture in childhood reduced with suction cup vacuum method: Case report and a systematic literature review. Cureus, 11: e5205. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5205

[19]

Bot GM, Ismail NJ, Usman B, et al., 2013, Using the head as a mould for cranioplasty with methylmethacrylate. J Neurosci Rural Pract, 4: 471–474. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.120207

[20]

Ebel H, Schillinger G, Walter C, et al., 2000, Titanium clamps for refixation of bone fragments in the repair of depressed skull fractures: Technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 43: 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-11380

[21]

Faried CK, Halim D, Arifin M, 2019, A rare care of depressed skull fractures at the anterior cranial fossa associated with communicating hydrocephalus resulting a progressive vision loss. Interdiscip Neurosurg, 17: 119–123. 

[22]

Forbes JA, Reig AS, Tomycz LD, et al., 2010, Intracranial hypertension caused by a depressed skull fracture resulting in superior sagittal sinus thrombosis in a pediatric patient: Treatment with ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. J Neurosurg Pediatr, 6: 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.PEDS09441

[23]

Haider G, Omofoye OA, Holsapple JW, 2020, Intracranial hypertension following gunshot wound to the torcula: Case report and literature review. World Neurosurg, 137: 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.170

[24]

Hewitt DK, Scheidt TD, Calhoun KH, 2009, Depressed anterior table fracture: A minimally invasive method of reduction. Ear Nose Throat J, 88: 734–735.

[25]

McCall TD, Fults DW, Schmidt RH, 2008, Use of resorbable collagen dural substitutes in the presence of cranial and spinal infections-report of 3 cases. Surg Neurol, 70: 92–96; discussion 96–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2007.04.007

[26]

Muderris SB, Ergun Sevil, Kiris M, 2013, Management of frontal sinus fracture: Reconstruction of the sinus with iliac bone graft. J Craniofac Surg, 24: e194–e195. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318280223a

[27]

Sheng HS, Shen F, Lin J, et al., 2017, Traumatic open depressed cranial fracture causing occlusion of posterior superior sagittal sinus: Case report. Medicine (Baltimore), 96: e7055. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007055

[28]

Wan Y, Li X, Qian C, et al., 2013, The comparison between dissociate bone flap cranioplasty and traditional cranioplasty in the treatment of depressed skull fractures. J Craniofac Surg, 24: 589–591. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182801bae 

[29]

Wylen EL, Willis BK, Nanda A, 1999, Infection rate with replacement of bone fragment in compound depressed skull fractures. Surg Neurol, 51: 452–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-3019(98)00040-8

[30]

Yang M, Wu Z, Yu H, et al., 2021, Reconstruction for diverse fronto-orbital defects with computer-assisted designed and computer-assisted manufactured PEEK implants in one-stage operation: Case reports. Medicine (Baltimore), 100: e27452. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027452

[31]

Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S, 2014, Materials used in cranioplasty: A history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus, 36: E19. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.2.FOCUS13561

[32]

Yu Q, Chen L, Qiu Z, et al., 2017, Skull repair materials applied in cranioplasty: History and progress Transl Neurosci Clin, 3: 48–57. https://doi.org/10.18679/CN11-6030_R.2017.007

[33]

Wolff A, Santiago GF, Belzberg M, et al., 2018, Adult cranioplasty reconstruction with customized cranial implants: Preferred technique, timing, and biomaterials. J Craniofac Surg, 29: 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004385 

[34]

Champlin R. Selection of autologous or allogeneic transplantation. In: Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al., editors. Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th ed. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2003. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK12844

[35]

van de Vijfeijken S, Munker T, Spijker R, et al., 2018, Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties: Safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review. World Neurosurg, 117: 443–452.e448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.193 

[36]

Beauchamp KM, Kashuk J, Moore EE, et al., 2010, Cranioplasty after postinjury decompressive craniectomy: Is timing of the essence? J Trauma, 69: 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e491c2

[37]

Neville IS, Amorim RL, Paiva WS, et al., 2014, Early surgery does not seem to be a pivotal criterion to improve prognosis in patients with frontal depressed skull fractures. Biomed Res Int, 2014: 879286. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/879286

[38]

De Cola MC, Corallo F, Pria D, et al., 2018, Timing for cranioplasty to improve neurological outcome: A systematic review. Brain Behav, 8: e01106. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1106

[39]

Klinger DR, Madden C, Beshay J, et al., 2014, Autologous and acrylic cranioplasty: A review of 10 years and 258 cases. World Neurosurg, 82: e525–e530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.08.005 

[40]

Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, et al., 2016, Cranioplasty: Review of materials. J Craniofac Surg, 27: 2061–2072. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003025

[41]

Satardey RS, Balasubramaniam S, Pandya JS, et al., 2018, Analysis of factors influencing outcome of depressed fracture of skull. Asian J Neurosurg, 13: 341–347. https://doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_117_16

Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Share
Back to top
Advanced Neurology, Electronic ISSN: 2810-9619 Published by AccScience Publishing