A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty

J Neurosurg 126:81–90, 2017

Autologous bone is usually used to reconstruct skull defects following decompressive surgery. However, it is associated with a high failure rate due to infection and resorption. The aim of this study was to see whether it would be cost-effective to use titanium as a primary reconstructive material.

Methods Sixty-four patients were enrolled and randomized to receive either their own bone or a primary titanium cranioplasty. All surgical procedures were performed by the senior surgeon. Primary and secondary outcome measures were assessed at 1 year after cranioplasty.

Results There were no primary infections in either arm of the trial. There was one secondary infection of a titanium cranioplasty that had replaced a resorbed autologous cranioplasty. In the titanium group, no patient was considered to have partial or complete cranioplasty failure at 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.002) and none needed revision (p = 0.053). There were 2 deaths unrelated to the cranioplasty, one in each arm of the trial. Among the 31 patients who had an autologous cranioplasty, 7 patients (22%) had complete resorption of the autologous bone such that it was deemed a complete failure. Partial or complete autologous bone resorption appeared to be more common among young patients than older patients (32 vs 45 years old, p = 0.013). The total cumulative cost between the 2 groups was not significantly different (mean difference A$3281, 95% CI $-9869 to $3308; p = 0.327).

Conclusions Primary titanium cranioplasty should be seriously considered for young patients who require reconstruction of the skull vault following decompressive craniectomy. Clinical trial registration no.: ACTRN12612000353897 (anzctr.org.au)

Image-guided resection of aggressive sacral tumors

Neurosurg Focus 42 (1):E15, 2017

The aim of this study was to identify and discuss operative nuances utilizing image guidance in the surgical management of aggressive sacral tumors.

Methods: The authors report on their single-institution, multi-surgeon, retrospective case series involving patients with pathology-proven aggressive sacral tumors treated between 2009 and 2016. They also reviewed the literature to identify articles related to aggressive sacral tumors, their diagnosis, and their surgical treatment and discuss the results together with their own experience. Information, including background, imaging, treatment, and surgical pearls, is organized by tumor type.

Results: Review of the institutional records identified 6 patients with sacral tumors who underwent surgery between 2009 and 2016. All 6 patients were treated with image-guided surgery using cone-beam CT technology (O-arm). The surgical technique used is described in detail, and 2 illustrative cases are presented. From the literature, the authors compiled information about chordomas, chondrosarcomas, giant cell tumors, and osteosarcomas and organized it by tumor type, providing a detailed discussion of background, imaging, and treatment as well as surgical pearls for each tumor type.

Conclusions: Aggressive sacral tumors can be an extremely difficult challenge for both the patient and the treating physician. The selected surgical intervention varies depending on the type of tumor, size, and location. Surgery can have profound risks including neural compression, lumbopelvic instability, and suboptimal oncological resection. Focusing on the operative nuances for each type can help prevent many of these complications. Anecdotal evidence is provided that utilization of image-guided surgery to aid in tumor resection at our institution has helped reduce blood loss and the local recurrence rate while preserving function in both malignant and aggressive benign tumors affecting the sacrum.