Interval cranioplasty: Comparison of current standards

Steven M. Sultan, Edward H. Davidson, Parag Butala, Jeffrey S. Schachar, Lukasz Witek, Caroline Szpalski, Jack L. Ricci, Pierre B. Saadeh, Stephen M. Warren

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Although different cranioplasty storage methods are currently in use, no study has prospectively compared these methods. The authors compare freezing and subcutaneous storage methods in a rat model. Methods: Trephine defects (10 mm) were created in 45 Sprague-Dawley rats. The cranial bone grafts were stored in an autologous subcutaneous pocket (n = 15), frozen at -80°C (n = 15), immediately analyzed (n = 12), or immediately replanted into the defect (n = 3). After 10 days of storage, the subcutaneous or frozen grafts were either replanted (subcutaneous, n = 3; frozen, n = 3) or analyzed (subcutaneous, n = 12; frozen, n = 12). Grafts underwent histologic analysis, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, alkaline phosphatase assay, mechanical testing, and micro-computed tomographic imaging. Results: After 10 days of storage, physiologic assays demonstrated a significant decrease in cellular functionality (e.g., alkaline phosphatase assay concentration: fresh, 18.8 ± 0.77 mM/mg; subcutaneous, 12.2 ± 0.63 mM/mg; frozen, 8.07 ± 1.1 mM/mg; p < 0.012 for all comparisons). Mechanical integrity (maximal load) of fresh grafts was greatest (fresh, 9.26 ± 0.29 N; subcutaneous, 6.27 ± 0.64 N; frozen, 4.65 ± 0.29 N; fresh compared with frozen, p < 0.001; fresh compared with subcutaneous, p = 0.006). Replantation of subcutaneously stored and frozen grafts resulted in limited bony union and considerable resorption after 12 weeks; in contrast, replanted fresh grafts demonstrated bony union and little resorption. Conclusions: Current preservation methods for interval cranioplasty do not maintain bone graft viability. Subcutaneous storage appears to provide a small advantage compared with freezing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1855-1864
Number of pages10
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume127
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Transplants
Freezing
Alkaline Phosphatase
Bone and Bones
Replantation
Sprague Dawley Rats

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Sultan, S. M., Davidson, E. H., Butala, P., Schachar, J. S., Witek, L., Szpalski, C., ... Warren, S. M. (2011). Interval cranioplasty: Comparison of current standards. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 127(5), 1855-1864. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820e89a5

Interval cranioplasty : Comparison of current standards. / Sultan, Steven M.; Davidson, Edward H.; Butala, Parag; Schachar, Jeffrey S.; Witek, Lukasz; Szpalski, Caroline; Ricci, Jack L.; Saadeh, Pierre B.; Warren, Stephen M.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 127, No. 5, 01.05.2011, p. 1855-1864.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sultan, SM, Davidson, EH, Butala, P, Schachar, JS, Witek, L, Szpalski, C, Ricci, JL, Saadeh, PB & Warren, SM 2011, 'Interval cranioplasty: Comparison of current standards', Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 1855-1864. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820e89a5
Sultan, Steven M. ; Davidson, Edward H. ; Butala, Parag ; Schachar, Jeffrey S. ; Witek, Lukasz ; Szpalski, Caroline ; Ricci, Jack L. ; Saadeh, Pierre B. ; Warren, Stephen M. / Interval cranioplasty : Comparison of current standards. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2011 ; Vol. 127, No. 5. pp. 1855-1864.
@article{263dc64d3078462fb879b3f41d2c028c,
title = "Interval cranioplasty: Comparison of current standards",
abstract = "Background: Although different cranioplasty storage methods are currently in use, no study has prospectively compared these methods. The authors compare freezing and subcutaneous storage methods in a rat model. Methods: Trephine defects (10 mm) were created in 45 Sprague-Dawley rats. The cranial bone grafts were stored in an autologous subcutaneous pocket (n = 15), frozen at -80°C (n = 15), immediately analyzed (n = 12), or immediately replanted into the defect (n = 3). After 10 days of storage, the subcutaneous or frozen grafts were either replanted (subcutaneous, n = 3; frozen, n = 3) or analyzed (subcutaneous, n = 12; frozen, n = 12). Grafts underwent histologic analysis, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, alkaline phosphatase assay, mechanical testing, and micro-computed tomographic imaging. Results: After 10 days of storage, physiologic assays demonstrated a significant decrease in cellular functionality (e.g., alkaline phosphatase assay concentration: fresh, 18.8 ± 0.77 mM/mg; subcutaneous, 12.2 ± 0.63 mM/mg; frozen, 8.07 ± 1.1 mM/mg; p < 0.012 for all comparisons). Mechanical integrity (maximal load) of fresh grafts was greatest (fresh, 9.26 ± 0.29 N; subcutaneous, 6.27 ± 0.64 N; frozen, 4.65 ± 0.29 N; fresh compared with frozen, p < 0.001; fresh compared with subcutaneous, p = 0.006). Replantation of subcutaneously stored and frozen grafts resulted in limited bony union and considerable resorption after 12 weeks; in contrast, replanted fresh grafts demonstrated bony union and little resorption. Conclusions: Current preservation methods for interval cranioplasty do not maintain bone graft viability. Subcutaneous storage appears to provide a small advantage compared with freezing.",
author = "Sultan, {Steven M.} and Davidson, {Edward H.} and Parag Butala and Schachar, {Jeffrey S.} and Lukasz Witek and Caroline Szpalski and Ricci, {Jack L.} and Saadeh, {Pierre B.} and Warren, {Stephen M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820e89a5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "1855--1864",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interval cranioplasty

T2 - Comparison of current standards

AU - Sultan, Steven M.

AU - Davidson, Edward H.

AU - Butala, Parag

AU - Schachar, Jeffrey S.

AU - Witek, Lukasz

AU - Szpalski, Caroline

AU - Ricci, Jack L.

AU - Saadeh, Pierre B.

AU - Warren, Stephen M.

PY - 2011/5/1

Y1 - 2011/5/1

N2 - Background: Although different cranioplasty storage methods are currently in use, no study has prospectively compared these methods. The authors compare freezing and subcutaneous storage methods in a rat model. Methods: Trephine defects (10 mm) were created in 45 Sprague-Dawley rats. The cranial bone grafts were stored in an autologous subcutaneous pocket (n = 15), frozen at -80°C (n = 15), immediately analyzed (n = 12), or immediately replanted into the defect (n = 3). After 10 days of storage, the subcutaneous or frozen grafts were either replanted (subcutaneous, n = 3; frozen, n = 3) or analyzed (subcutaneous, n = 12; frozen, n = 12). Grafts underwent histologic analysis, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, alkaline phosphatase assay, mechanical testing, and micro-computed tomographic imaging. Results: After 10 days of storage, physiologic assays demonstrated a significant decrease in cellular functionality (e.g., alkaline phosphatase assay concentration: fresh, 18.8 ± 0.77 mM/mg; subcutaneous, 12.2 ± 0.63 mM/mg; frozen, 8.07 ± 1.1 mM/mg; p < 0.012 for all comparisons). Mechanical integrity (maximal load) of fresh grafts was greatest (fresh, 9.26 ± 0.29 N; subcutaneous, 6.27 ± 0.64 N; frozen, 4.65 ± 0.29 N; fresh compared with frozen, p < 0.001; fresh compared with subcutaneous, p = 0.006). Replantation of subcutaneously stored and frozen grafts resulted in limited bony union and considerable resorption after 12 weeks; in contrast, replanted fresh grafts demonstrated bony union and little resorption. Conclusions: Current preservation methods for interval cranioplasty do not maintain bone graft viability. Subcutaneous storage appears to provide a small advantage compared with freezing.

AB - Background: Although different cranioplasty storage methods are currently in use, no study has prospectively compared these methods. The authors compare freezing and subcutaneous storage methods in a rat model. Methods: Trephine defects (10 mm) were created in 45 Sprague-Dawley rats. The cranial bone grafts were stored in an autologous subcutaneous pocket (n = 15), frozen at -80°C (n = 15), immediately analyzed (n = 12), or immediately replanted into the defect (n = 3). After 10 days of storage, the subcutaneous or frozen grafts were either replanted (subcutaneous, n = 3; frozen, n = 3) or analyzed (subcutaneous, n = 12; frozen, n = 12). Grafts underwent histologic analysis, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, alkaline phosphatase assay, mechanical testing, and micro-computed tomographic imaging. Results: After 10 days of storage, physiologic assays demonstrated a significant decrease in cellular functionality (e.g., alkaline phosphatase assay concentration: fresh, 18.8 ± 0.77 mM/mg; subcutaneous, 12.2 ± 0.63 mM/mg; frozen, 8.07 ± 1.1 mM/mg; p < 0.012 for all comparisons). Mechanical integrity (maximal load) of fresh grafts was greatest (fresh, 9.26 ± 0.29 N; subcutaneous, 6.27 ± 0.64 N; frozen, 4.65 ± 0.29 N; fresh compared with frozen, p < 0.001; fresh compared with subcutaneous, p = 0.006). Replantation of subcutaneously stored and frozen grafts resulted in limited bony union and considerable resorption after 12 weeks; in contrast, replanted fresh grafts demonstrated bony union and little resorption. Conclusions: Current preservation methods for interval cranioplasty do not maintain bone graft viability. Subcutaneous storage appears to provide a small advantage compared with freezing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955649985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955649985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820e89a5

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820e89a5

M3 - Article

C2 - 21532415

AN - SCOPUS:79955649985

VL - 127

SP - 1855

EP - 1864

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 5

ER -