Skip to main content
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open logoLink to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
. 2019 Dec 11;7(12):e2562. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002562

Determinants of 30-day Morbidity in Adult Cranioplasty: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis of 697 Cases

Rachel E Armstrong *, Marco F Ellis †,
PMCID: PMC7288897  PMID: 32537306

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Cranioplasty is performed to restore the function and anatomy of the skull. Many techniques are used, including replacement of the bone flap and reconstruction with autologous or synthetic materials. This study describes the complication profile of adult cranioplasty using a prospective national sample and identifies risk factors for 30-day morbidity.

Methods:

The American College of Surgeon’s National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database for 2015–2016 was utilized. Cases were identified by current procedural terminology code, size, and type (autologous/alloplastic). χ2, Fisher exact, and ANOVA tests compared demographic differences. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for 30-day morbidity and mortality.

Results:

Six hundred ninety-seven cranioplasty cases were identified. Two cases used 2 types of cranioplasties and were counted in both groups. Five hundred forty-three cranioplasties were alloplastic, 57 were autologous, and 99 were classified as “Other.” Age, race, diabetes, ventilator dependency, congestive heart failure, hypertension, wound infection, sepsis, and bleeding disorders were identified on univariate analysis to increase complication risk. Multivariate analysis identified age of the patient, systemic sepsis, and bleeding disorders as significant risk factors for complications. There was no difference in complications between cranioplasty types. Overall and medical complications were greater in cranioplasties >5 cm (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Cranioplasty is a morbid procedure, with a complication rate of 27.4% and a mortality rate of 3.0% in this national sample. Factors such as age, sepsis, bleeding disorders, and size increase risk. Identification and modification of risk factors may guide operative timing and influence informed consent.

INTRODUCTION

Rationale and Background Information

Cranioplasty is performed to replace missing or damaged cranium following craniectomies and craniotomies. Studies have demonstrated clear benefits of this procedure, including appearance restoration, cognitive function improvement, increased cerebral blood flow, and increased patient satisfaction and quality of life.13 Cranioplasty has an extensive history of use and can be performed with autologous bone or a variety of alloplastic implants.4,5

While there have been single institution68 and nationwide9 studies demonstrating that cranioplasty conveys significant risk, there have been no studies to date examining morbidity and mortality of the cranioplasty procedure using a nationally validated, peer-controlled database.10 Such a study would provide patients and providers with an understanding of risks for postoperative complication. This would allow for more informed decision-making before surgery and help to guide the timing of cranioplasty procedures.

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program is a national surgical database that contains demographic, comorbidity, operative, and complication data from hundreds of participating hospitals across the United States.11 The magnitude and reliability of this database made it an ideal tool with which to examine the morbidity and mortality of cranioplasty.

Study Goals and Objectives

This study aims to utilize the NSQIP database to assess (1) the risk factors associated with all-cause complication following cranioplasty, (2) the effect of size of cranioplasty implant on complication rates, and (3) the effect of cranioplasty type on complication rates.

METHODS

Study Design

The NSQIP database for the years 2015–2016 was surveyed for patients who had undergone cranioplasty. Cases were identified based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Cases were subgrouped according to whether the patients received an alloplastic (CPT 62140 and 62141), autologous (CPT 62146 and 62147), or other type of cranioplasty—including “replacement of bone flap or prosthetic plate of skull” and “cranioplasty for skull defect with reparative brain surgery” (CPT 62143 and 62145). In the autologous and alloplastic groups, cases were categorized based on whether the implant was <5 cm (CPT 62140 and 62146) or >5 cm (CPT 62141 and 62147).

Variables Studied

Demographic, comorbidity, and operative characteristic data were collected including age, gender, race, diabetes, smoking status, dyspnea, ventilator dependency, COPD, ascites, congestive heart failure within the past 30 days, hypertension, acute renal failure, dialysis status, disseminated cancer, steroid use for chronic condition, >10% loss in body weight in the last 6 months, systemic sepsis, bleeding disorders, pre-op transfusion of >1 units of RBC, inpatient status, wound class, ASA class, total wRVU, and total operative time. BMI was calculated from height and weight data.

Surgical and medical complications were tabulated. Surgical complications included superficial infection, wound infection, organ space SSI, and wound disruption. Medical complications included pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, failure to wean from respirator, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure, UTI occurrence, CVA/stroke with neurological deficit, cardiac arrest requiring CPR, myocardial infarction, bleeding transfusions, DVT/thrombophlebitis, sepsis, and septic shock. Overall complications rates included all medical complications and surgical complications, as well as death within 30 days of surgery, any readmission, and unplanned reoperation.

Missing Data

Patients with missing data were excluded from the analyses that corresponded with their missing data. Thirty-two patients lacked weight and/or height data, and therefore their BMI could not be calculated. One patient’s age was coded as 90+, and thus this patient was excluded from the age data. This patient was also excluded from the multivariate analysis. Sample sizes are listed next to the age and BMI data, the 2 variables in which there was missing data.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Demographic analysis was ascertained utilizing descriptive statistics including the Fisher exact test and χ2 test for categorical data and ANOVA for numerical data. The univariate analysis was also performed with the χ2 test, the Fisher exact test, and ANOVA. The multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression including the data in the univariate analysis found to be significant or approaching significance. A P-value < 0.05 was deemed significant, and P-values < 0.10 were deemed as approaching significance.

RESULTS

From the study population (2015–2016 NSQIP data), 697 patients were included. Of the 697 patients, 1 patient received both an alloplastic and autologous cranioplasty, and 1 patient received both an alloplastic and “other” cranioplasty. These 2 cases were included in both of the corresponding groups. In total, 543 cranioplasties were alloplastic, 57 were autologous, and 99 were classified as “other.”

Demographic, comorbidity, and operative characteristic data between the cranioplasty types is described in Table 1. Demographic, comorbidity, and operative characteristics were compared between the autologous, alloplastic, and “other” subgroups (Table 1). Age (P = 0.028), race (P <0.001), disseminated cancer (P = 0.023), systemic sepsis (P = 0.002), ASA class (P = 0.002), total wRVU (P <0.001), and total operative time (P = 0.025) were found to significantly differ between the types of cranioplasty procedures.

Table 1.

Demographic Data, Comorbidities, and Operative Data Were Compared in Patients with Alloplastic Versus Autologous Versus Other Cranioplasty Types

Cranioplasty Type P
Alloplastic Autologous Other
n = 543 % n = 57 % n = 99 %
Demographics
 Age (n = 698) 55.34 ± 15.86 (n = 542) 49.84 ± 15.68 (n = 57) 56.36 ±1 4.195 (n = 99) 0.028*
 BMI (n = 667) 28.93 ± 7.20 (n = 530) 31.21 ± 7.85 (n = 52) 29.445 ± 6.54 (n = 85) 0.087
 Gender 0.15
  Male 231 42.50 20 35.10 50 50.50
  Female 312 57.50 37 64.90 49 49.50
 Race <0.001
  American Indian or Alaska 3 0.60 1 1.8 0 0.0
 Native
  Asian 19 3.50 2 3.5 2 2.0
  Black or African American 52 9.60 7 12.3 4 4.0
  Native Hawaiian or Pacific 1 0.20 0 0.0 0 0.0
 Islander
  Unknown/not reported 69 12.70 15 26.3 43 43.4
  White 399 73.50 32 56.1 50 50.5
Comorbidities
 Diabetes 0.32
  Insulin 24 4.4 1 1.8 5 5.1
  Non-insulin 44 8.1 5 8.8 14 14.1
 Current smoker 112 20.6 14 24.6 18 18.2 0.62
 Dyspnea 0.81
 At rest 3 0.6 0 0.0 1 1.0
 Moderate exertion 19 3.5 2 3.5 2 2.0
 Ventilator dependent 6 1.1 0 0.0 2 2.0 0.53
 COPD 21 3.9 0 0.0 4 4.0 0.43
 Ascites 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
 CHF <30 d 2 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.0 0.53
 Hypertension 199 36.6 20 35.1 41 41.4 0.62
 Acute renal failure 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 0.22
 Currently on dialysis 2 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.00
 Disseminated cancer 89 16.4 3 5.3 21 21.2 0.023*
 Open wound/wound infection 17 3.1 0 0.0 4 4.0 0.34
 Steroid use for chronic condition 51 9.4 5 8.8 12 12.1 0.67
 >10% loss body weight in last 6 mo 9 1.2 0 0.0 4 4.0 0.18
 Systemic sepsis (any) 0.002†
 Sepsis 0 0.00 1 1.80 2 2.0
 Septic shock 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.0
 SIRS 27 5.00 0 0.00 2 2.0
 Bleeding disorders 16 2.90 3 5.30 3 3.0 0.62
 Pre-op transfusion >1 units RBC 2 0.40 0 0.00 1 1.0 0.53
 Inpatient status 527 97.10 55 96.50 98 99.0 0.58
Operative Characteristics
  Wound class 0.24
 1. Clean 488 89.90 47 82.50 90 90.9
 2. Clean-contaminated 32 5.90 5 8.80 6 6.1
 3. Contaminated 12 2.20 3 5.30 0 0.0
 4. Infected 11 2.00 2 3.50 3 3.0
 ASA class 0.002†
 Class 1 16 2.90 3 5.30 0 0
 Class 2 151 27.30 22 38.60 20 20.20
 Class 3 308 56.70 27 47.40 53 53.50
 Class 4 62 11.40 4 7.00 25 25.30
 Class 5 1 0.20 0 0 1 1.00
 None assigned 5 0.90 1 1.80 0 0
 Total wRVU 37.8409±12.17796 33.5663±8.93116 32.5189±8.19076 <0.001‡
  Total operative time 262.8±163.703 290±183.897 222.37±141.969 0.025*

Significant findings are in bold font.

* P value < 0.05.

P value < 0.01.

P value < 0.001.

CHF, congestive heart failure.

Complication frequencies are described in Table 2. Twenty-one (3.0%) patients died within 30 days of surgery. Many patients had >1 complication, and a total of 191 patients (27.4%) from the sample experienced 1 or more complications.

Table 2.

Complication Numbers and Percentages Are Listed for the Entire Sample Size of Patients Who Underwent Cranioplasty

Outcome Count Percentage
Surgical complications
 Occurrences superficial infection (SUPINFEC) 7 1.0
 Occurrences deep incisional SSI (WNDINF) 4 0.6
 Occurrences organ space SSI (ORGSPSSI) 11 1.6
 Occurrences wound disruption (DEHIS) 6 0.9
Medical complications
 Occurrences pneumonia (OUPNEUMO) 17 2.4
 Occurrences reintubation (REINTUB) 15 2.2
 Occurrence pulmonary embolism (PULEMBOL) 4 0.6
 Occurrence failure to wean from respirator (FAILWEAN) 28 4.0
 Occurrences progressive renal insufficiency (RENAINSF) 4 0.6
 Occurrences acute renal failure (OPRENAFL) 2 0.3
 Occurrences UTI (URNINFEC) 14 2.0
 CVA/stroke with neurological deficit (CNSCVA) 15 2.2
 Occurrences cardiac arrest requiring CPR (CDARREST) 3 0.4
 Occurrences myocardial infarction (CDMI) 0 0.0
 Occurrences bleeding transfusions (OTHBLEED) 58 8.3
 Occurrences DVT/thrombophlebitis (OTHDVT) 17 2.4
 Occurrences sepsis (OTHSYSEP) 17 2.4
 Occurrences septic shock (OTHSESHOCK) 1 0.1
Death, readmission, and reoperation
 Death 21 3.0
 Readmission 70 10.0
 Return to OR 56 8.0
Total
 No. patients with 1+ complications 191 27.4

In the univariate analysis (Table 3), age (P < 0.001), race (P = 0.030), diabetes (P = 0.046), ventilator dependency (P = 0.039), congestive heart failure (P = 0.020), hypertension (P = 0.001), open wound/wound infection (P = 0.013), systemic sepsis (P = 0.005), and bleeding disorders (P = 0.007) were found to be significantly correlated with any complication outcome. Dialysis status (P = 0.075) and >10% loss of body weight (P = 0.053) approached significance, and were thus included in the multivariate analysis.

Table 3.

In the Univariate Analysis, Demographics, Comorbidities, and Operative Data Were Compared in Patients Who Developed Complications within 30 Days Versus Patients Who Did Not

Complications No Complications P
Demographics
 Age (n = 696) 58.47 ± 15.84 53.77 ± 15.42 <0.001‡
 BMI (n = 665) 29.66 ± 7.70 29.01 ± 6.97 0.30
Complication occurrencesTotal n = 697 Percentage
 Gender 0.67
 Male (n = 300) 85 28.30
 Female (n = 397) 106 26.70
 Race 0.030*
  American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 4) 0 0
  Asian (n =23) 6 26.10
  Black or African American (n = 63) 26 41.30
  Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 1) 1 100
  White (n = 480) 131 27.30
  Unknown/Not Reported (n = 126) 27 21.40
Comorbidities
 Diabetes 0.046*
  Diabetic with insulin (n = 30) 14 46.70
  Diabetic with non-insulin agents (n = 63) 19 30.20
  Not diabetic (n = 604) 158 26.20
 Current smoker 1.00
  Smoker (n = 144) 39 27.10
  Nonsmoker (n = 553) 152 27.50
 Dyspnea 0.18
  Dyspnea at rest (n = 4) 1 25
  Dyspnea with moderate exertion (n = 23) 10 43.50
  No Dyspnea (n = 670) 180 26.90
 Ventilator dependent 0.039*
  Dependent (n = 8) 5 62.50
  Not dependent (n = 689) 186 27.00
 COPD 0.17
  History of severe COPD (n = 25) 10 40
  No COPD history (n = 672) 181 26.90
 CHF <30 d 0.020*
  Congestive heart failure (n = 3) 3 100
  No heart failure (n = 694) 188 27.10
 Hypertension 0.001†
  Hypertension requiring medication (n = 260) 91 35.00
  No hypertension (n = 437) 100 22.90
 Acute renal failure 0.27
  Yes (n = 1) 1 100
  No (n = 696) 190 27.30
 Currently on dialysis 0.075
  Yes (n = 2) 2 100
  No (n = 695) 189 27.20
 Disseminated cancer 0.73
  Yes (n = 113) 29 25.70
  No (n = 584) 162 27.70
 Open wound/wound infection 0.013*
  Yes (n = 21) 11 52.40
  No (n = 676) 180 26.60
 Steroid use for chronic condition 0.67
  Steroid use for chronic condition (n = 67) 20 29.90
  No steroid use (n = 630) 171 27.10
 >10% loss body weight in last 6 months 0.053
  Yes (n = 13) 7 53.80
  No (n = 684) 184 26.90
 Systemic sepsis (any) 0.005†
  Sepsis (n = 3) 2 66.70
  Septic Shock (n = 1) 1 100
  SIRS (n = 29) 14 48.30
  None (n = 664) 174 26.20
 Inpatient status 0.31
  Inpatient (n = 678) 188 27.70
  Outpatient (n = 19) 3 15.80
 Bleeding disorders 0.007†
  Yes (n = 22) 12 54.50
  No (n = 675) 179 26.50
 Transfusion of ≥1 units RBC 72 hours before surgery 1.00
  Yes (n = 3) 1 33.30
  No (n = 694) 190 27.40

Significant findings are in bold font.

CHF, congestive heart failure.

In the multivariate analysis (Table 4), age (P = 0.029), systemic sepsis (P = 0.015), open wound/wound infection (P = 0.046), and bleeding disorders (P = 0.045) were found to be significantly correlated with any complication outcome.

Table 4.

In the Multivariate Analysis, Factors Found in the Univariate Analysis to Be Significant (P < 0.05) or Approaching Significance (P < 0.10) Were Evaluated for Significance in a Binary Logistic Regression

Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval Sig.
Lower Upper
Age of patient with patients over 89 coded as 90+ 1.014 1.001 1.027 0.029*
White 0.426
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.000 0.000 0.999
Asian 1.201 0.456 3.163 0.710
Black or African American 1.662 0.921 3.002 0.092
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.000 1.000
Unknown/not reported 0.756 0.464 1.231 0.260
Diabetes mellitus with non-insulin oral agents 0.234
Diabetes mellitus with insulin 2.105 0.818 5.417 0.123
No diabetes 1.087 0.583 2.028 0.792
Ventilator dependent 2.671 0.551 12.938 0.222
Congestive heart failure in 30 days before surgery 0.000 0.999
Hypertension requiring medication 1.303 0.870 1.952 0.198
Currently on dialysis (pre-op) 0.000 0.999
>10% loss body weight in last 6 months 2.804 0.889 8.844 0.078
Open wound/wound infection 2.610 1.019 6.682 0.046*
Systemic Sepsis 2.684 1.216 5.926 0.015*
Bleeding disorders 2.589 1.021 6.561 0.045*

Significant findings are in bold font.

* P value <0.05.

† Too high to be reported.

Cranioplasty complication rates did not vary significantly based on type (Table 5). Rates of overall complications (P < 0.001) and medical complications (P < 0.001) were significantly different between cranioplasties <5 cm and >5 cm (Table 6) (see table, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which lists the numerical value of specific complications by cranioplasty type, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/B266) (see table, Supplemental Digital Content 2, which lists the specific complications by cranioplasty size, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/B267).

Table 5.

The Outcome of Overall, Medical, or Surgical Complications Was Compared between Alloplastic, Autologous, and “Other” Cranioplasty Groups

Cranioplasty Type
Alloplastic (n = 543) (%) Autologous (n = 57) (%) Other (n = 99) (%) Significance
Complication Type Overall 28.00 24.60 27.30 0.86
Surgical 3.50 3.50 2.00 0.75
Medical 17.50 22.80 15.20 0.48

**Overall complication rates include medical complications, surgical complications, death, reoperation and readmission.

Table 6.

The Outcome of Overall Complications, Medical Complications, Surgical Complications, and Death Was Compared between Procedures with Cranioplasty >5 cm and Those with Cranioplasty <5 cm

Defect Size
>5 cm <5 cm
n = 385* % n = 212* %
Overall complications† 85 22.10 79 37.30 <0.001
Medical complications 44 11.40 63 29.70 <0.001
Surgical complications 13 3.40 7 3.30 0.96
Death 8 2.10 7 3.30 0.36

Significant findings are in bold font.

*Two patients who had a >5 cm and <5 cm implant were excluded.

†Overall complications include death, reoperation, and readmission as well as surgical and medical complications.

P value < 0.001.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis, 697 patients were identified in the NSQIP database as having undergone cranioplasty. The mortality within 30 days of the procedure was 3.0% and the presence of any complication 30 days after surgery was 27.4%. Comparable mortality and complication rates have been found in the literature.68,12,13

There are discrepancies in past reports on the complication profiles of different cranioplasty types. Past studies have demonstrated lower rates of surgical complications in synthetic implants as opposed to autografts,14 higher complication rates in non-autogenous versus autogenous grafts,15 or no difference between autografts and allografts.16,17 Our analysis found no significant differences in medical, surgical, and overall complications between the cranioplasty types.

While implant material did not appear to influence morbidity, implant size did. Larger implants were associated with higher overall complications (P < 0.001) and medical complications (P < 0.001). Other studies have also found a relationship between implant size and complications.9,18 Patients needing larger implants often have a higher degree of trauma and infection before cranioplasty surgery, which may contribute to their poorer postoperative outcomes.

Of the variety of variables evaluated in the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding disorders, open wound/wound infection, and systemic sepsis were found to significantly increase the risk of complication. Age has been found to increase postsurgical morbidity in cranioplasty and neurosurgical procedures as a whole.13,19,20 While some studies recommend that age alone should not be used rule out surgery,20 age should be included in the discussion with the prospective cranioplasty patient since for every 1 year increase in age the morbidity of cranioplasty increases by 1.4% (Table 4).

Open wounds (with or without infection) before surgery were also associated with an increased risk of complication. The odds of developing complication in patients with open wounds (relative to no wounds) were 2.61:1. Craniectomies and craniotomies, which are performed before cranioplasty, carry a sizeable risk of postoperative dehiscence.21,22 Wound dehiscence from these procedures impacts future wound healing, leads to hospital readmission, and increases risk of future infection.2124 It follows that individuals with an open wound before surgery would have an increased risk of complications post-cranioplasty. While some would recommend delaying cranioplasty in the setting of open wounds and infection,7 this must be weighed with the risk of the neurological complications that can occur when cranioplasty is postponed.25

Bleeding disorders were also significantly associated with complications. Patients with bleeding disorders require complex management when undergoing surgical procedures, and the degree of risk surgery confers depends heavily on the severity of their disease and their medical regimen.26 This study found that the odds of patients with bleeding disorders developing complications when compared with controls were 2.59:1. As such, caution and appropriate intraoperative management are recommended for patients with bleeding disorders before cranioplasty.

Systemic sepsis—including sepsis, septic shock, and SIRS—was also associated with postoperative morbidity. The odds of developing any complication in septic patients versus non-septic patients were 2.68:1. Even outside of the surgical setting, septic patients are at drastically increased risk of death and acute organ failure.27,28 Subjecting such high-risk patients to surgery puts them at additional risk for death, lung, liver, and renal failure, as well as a host of other complications.29 Due to the high rates of complication following cranioplasty in septic patients, the patient and the surgical team should evaluate whether the procedure is worth the risks to the patient’s overall health.

Limitations

This study is limited by the nature and scope of the NSQIP database. While this database contains comprehensive morbidity data 30 days postoperatively, outcomes beyond that point are lost. Past studies have followed patients from a couple of months to several years after cranioplasty to monitor for any complications.3,14,17,30 Many complications, such as bone resorption, infection, and exposure of implant material may take a longer time to manifest, and thus would be missed by this study.

Another limitation of this study is that a wide variety of implant materials are considered alloplastic implants—including titanium, polymethyl-methacrylate, polyether-ketone-ketone, and hydroxyapatite. However, there was no way to differentiate these further based on the NSQIP data. Different alloplastic materials may have different complication profiles.12,31,32 Thus, the heterogeneity of the alloplastic group should be taken into consideration in light of the similar complication profiles between the autologous, alloplastic, and “other” cranioplasty group.

Lastly, the univariate analysis results informed the multivariate model selection. More robust findings may have been made evident with a more sophisticated statistical model.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, cranioplasty is a morbid procedure, with a complication rate of 27.4% and a mortality rate of 3.0% in this national sample. Factors such as age, sepsis, open wound/wound infection, bleeding disorders, and size increase risk. Identification and modification of risk factors may guide operative timing and influence informed consent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Jennifer McGrath, MD, for her contributions throughout the project.

Supplementary Material

gox-7-e2562-s001.pdf (116.9KB, pdf)
gox-7-e2562-s002.pdf (109.8KB, pdf)

Footnotes

Published online 11 December 2019.

Presented at the American Academy of Plastic Surgeons Annual Meeting, April 6–9, 2019, in Baltimore, Md.; and the Midwestern Association of Plastic Surgery Annual Meeting, May 3–5, 2019, Lake Geneva, Wisc.

Rachel Armstrong reports no commercial associations or financial relationships. Dr. Ellis had a consulting relationship with Biomet Zimmer approximately 24 months ago. Neither he nor his family has a personal stake in the company. Biomet Zimmer did not contribute financially to this research.

Related Digital Media are available in the full-text version of the article on www.PRSGlobalOpen.com.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Di Stefano C, Sturiale C, Trentini P, et al. Unexpected neuropsychological improvement after cranioplasty: a case series study. Br J Neurosurg. 2012;26:827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Agner C, Dujovny M, Gaviria M. Neurocognitive assessment before and after cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2002;144:1033–1040; discussion 1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cabraja M, Klein M, Lehmann TN. Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26:E10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grant FC, Norcross NC. Repair of cranial defects by cranioplasty. Ann Surg. 1939;110:488–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jaberi J, Gambrell K, Tiwana P, et al. Long-term clinical outcome analysis of poly-methyl-methacrylate cranioplasty for large skull defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:e81–e88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, et al. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26:E9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wachter D, Reineke K, Behm T, et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy: underestimated surgery-associated complications? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:1293–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li A, Azad TD, Veeravagu A, et al. Cranioplasty complications and costs: A national population-level analysis using the marketscan longitudinal database. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:209–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Alluri RK, Leland H, Heckmann N. Surgical research using national databases. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4:393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. User guide for the 2016 participant use data file. https://www.facs.org/~/media/files/quality%20programs/nsqip/nsqip_puf_userguide_2016.ashx. Accessed November 23, 2018.
  • 12.Thien A, King NK, Ang BT, et al. Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg. 2015;83:176–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, et al. Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases. J Neurosurg. 2015;123:182–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Piitulainen JM, Kauko T, Aitasalo KM, et al. Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. World Neurosurg. 2015;83:708–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lee HJ, Choi JW, Chung IW. Secondary skull reconstruction with autogenous split calvarial bone grafts versus nonautogenous materials. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:1337–1340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yadla S, Campbell PG, Chitale R, et al. Effect of early surgery, material, and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections: a systematic review. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:1124–1129; discussion 1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reddy S, Khalifian S, Flores JM, et al. Clinical outcomes in cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:864–873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mukherjee S, Thakur B, Haq I, et al. Complications of titanium cranioplasty–a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014;156:989–998; discussion 998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sahoo NK, Tomar K, Thakral A, et al. Complications of cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:1344–1348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maldaner N, Sarnthein J, Bozinov O, et al. Neurosurgery in octogenarians: A prospective study of perioperative morbidity, mortality, and complications in elderly patients. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:e287–e295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Di Rienzo A, Pangrazi PP, Riccio M, et al. Skin flap complications after decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty: proposal of classification and treatment options. Surg Neurol Int. 2016;7Suppl 28):S737–S745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Barami K, Fernandes R. Incidence, risk factors and management of delayed wound dehiscence after craniotomy for tumor resection. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:854–857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dasenbrock HH, Yan SC, Smith TR, et al. Readmission after craniotomy for tumor: a national surgical quality improvement program analysis. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:551–562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stiver SI. Complications of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26:E7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, et al. Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg. 2010;112:1120–1124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mensah PK, Gooding R. Surgery in patients with inherited bleeding disorders. Anaesthesia. 2015;70Suppl 1112, e39–120, e39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Eissa D, Carton EG, Buggy DJ. Anaesthetic management of patients with severe sepsis. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:734–743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wichmann MW, Inthorn D, Andress HJ, et al. Incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in surgical intensive care patients: the influence of patient gender on disease process and outcome. Intensive Care Med. 2000;26:167–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hofer JE, Nunnally ME. Taking the septic patient to the operating room. Anesthesiol Clin. 2010;28:13–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Broughton E, Pobereskin L, Whitfield PC. Seven years of cranioplasty in a regional neurosurgical centre. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28:34–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kwarcinski J, Boughton P, Ruys A, et al. Cranioplasty and craniofacial reconstruction: a review of implant material, manufacturing method and infection risk. Appl Sci. 2017;7:276. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Moreira-Gonzalez A, Jackson IT, Miyawaki T, et al. Clinical outcome in cranioplasty: critical review in long-term follow-up. J Craniofac Surg. 2003;14:144–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES