Outcomes of Immediate Titanium Cranioplasty Following Post-Craniotomy Infection.

When craniotomy complicated by secondary infection requires debridement and craniectomy, the bony defect is typically not reconstructed immediately. Due to concerns about placing a prosthetic material in an infected field, cranioplasty has traditionally been delayed by weeks or months after craniectomy. However, surgeons have begun performing single-stage cranioplasty after craniectomy in an effort to reduce the morbidity associated with multiple procedures and reduce overall healthcare costs. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of immediate cranioplasty performed after bone flap debridement secondary to infection. A literature review from January 1, 1998 through January 1, 2019 was conducted, examining the data on immediate titanium cranioplasty and its complication and reoperation rates. A meta-analysis of these articles was then performed. Variables studied included incidence of infection post-cranioplasty, wound healing complications, need for unplanned reoperation, and mortality. In total, there were 40 patients who underwent immediate cranioplasty after bone flap debridement. Overall, there was a 5% rate of postoperative infection, a 12.5% rate of unplanned return to the operating room, 7.5% rate of CSF fistula or leak, a 2.5% rate of hematoma, and a 2.5% rate of mortality within the immediate post-op period. Although there are insufficient data in the literature to rigorously compare these immediate cranioplasties in a direct way with the more traditional delayed type; the outcomes of immediate cranioplasty procedures secondary to craniectomy for infection were similar to the outcomes of delayed cranioplasty after craniectomy for any reason. Given these results, immediate titanium cranioplasty should be considered in select patients.

A comparison of quality of care indicators in urban acute care hospitals and rural critical access hospitals in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Two recent Institute of Medicine reports highlight that the quality of healthcare in the US is less than what should be expected from the world's most extensive and expensive healthcare system. This may be especially true for critical access hospitals since these smaller rural-based hospitals often have fewer resources and less funding than larger urban hospitals. The purpose of this paper was to compare quality of hospital care provided in urban acute care hospitals to that provided in rural critical access hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study analyzing secondary Hospital Compare data. T-test statistics were computed on weighted data to ascertain if differences were statistically significant (P=0.01). SETTING: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: US Acute Care and Critical Access hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between urban acute care hospitals and rural critical access hospitals on quality care indicators related to acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia. RESULTS: For 8 of the 12 hospital quality indicators the differences between urban acute care and rural critical access hospitals were statistically significant (P=0.01). In seven instances these differences favored urban hospitals. One indicator related to pneumonia favored rural hospitals CONCLUSIONS: Although this study focused on only three disease states, these are among the most common clinical conditions encountered in inpatient settings. The findings suggested that there may be differences in quality in rural critical access hospitals and urban acute care hospitals and support the need for future studies addressing disparities between urban acute care and rural critical access hospitals.