Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The procedure of split-skull cranioplasty was first investigated at the turn of the century. The present authors first reported their technique of split-skull cranioplasty in 1983, and describe here their experience with this procedure in the management of extensive and difficult cranial defects. Twenty-nine patients (11 females and 18 males) are reviewed. Ten patients had histories of infection before reconstruction surgery. Eleven patients received radiation therapy at the grafted areas. The postoperative follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 4 1/2 years. There was no evidence of bone resorption during that time, and minor complications occurred in only two of the patients. This procedure offered several advantages: 1) the bone graft, an autogenous material, can be used in previously infected areas; 2) the reconstruction contour is smooth and natural; 3) there was no morbidity or scarring at the donor site; 4) surgery time is much shorter than with split-rib cranioplasty. The primary disadvantage of split-skull cranioplasty is the decreased thickness of the skull at the donor site.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guyuron et al. (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: