| 1. |
- Kölby, David, 1993, et al.
(författare)
-
Craniotomy of the Fused Sagittal Suture Over the Superior Sagittal Sinus Is a Safe Procedure
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1049-2275. ; 28:3, s. 666-669
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Spring-assisted cranioplasty to correct sagittal synostosis is based on midline craniotomy through the closed sagittal suture, over the superior sagittal sinus (SSS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the perioperative safety of this technique. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of all patients operated with median craniotomy and springs from 1998 to the end of 2015. For comparison, all Pi-plasties performed during the same time interval were also evaluated. The safety measures were evaluated based on incidence of damage to SSS, incidence of dural tears, perioperative blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay. Results: In the group that had undergone midline craniotomy combined with springs (n = 225), 4 perioperative damages to SSS and 1 dural tear were seen. The perioperative blood loss was 62.8 +/- 65.3mL (mean +/- standard deviation). The operative time was 67.9 +/- 21.5 minutes and the hospital stay was 4.8 +/- 1.1 days. In the group that had undergone pi-plasty (n = 105), no damages to SSS but 3 dural tears were seen. The perioperative blood loss was 352.8 +/- 174.4 mL. The operative time was 126.0 +/- 31.7 minutes and the hospital stay was 7.1 +/- 1.4 days. Conclusion: Craniotomy SSS in sagittal synostosis is a safe procedure with low morbidity in terms of damage to the SSS. Midline craniotomy combined with springs has significantly lower preoperative blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay (P < 0.001 for all) compared to pi-plasty.
|
|
| 2. |
- Paganini, Anna, 1979, et al.
(författare)
-
In search of a single standardised system for reporting complications in craniofacial surgery: a comparison of three different classifications.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery. - 2000-6764. ; 59:6, s. 321-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Comparing complication rates between centres is difficult due to the lack of unanimous criteria regarding what adverse events should be defined as complications and how these events should be compiled. This study analysed all adverse events in a cohort of craniofacial (CF) operations over a 10-year period and applied three different scales (Clavien-Dindo, Leeds and Oxford) for systematic comparison. A total of 1023 consecutive CF procedures in 641 patients was identified. The Clavien-Dindo scale captured 74 complications in 74 procedures (7.2%), whereas the Leeds and Oxford scales captured 163 complications in 134 procedures (13.1%) and 85 complications in 83 procedures (8.1%), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo scale appeared less suitable for CF surgery, because it is predominantly adapted to severe complications and also regards blood transfusion as a complication. The Leeds scale provided a detailed picture of all complications, as well as minor events, whereas the Oxford scale captured all major complications well but applied less accurate definitions for the minor events. Our findings contribute to the benchmarking of complications between CF centres and suggest that both the Leeds and the Oxford scale appear relevant, depending on the emphasis required for major and minor complications and inter-centre audits, respectively.
|
|
