Evaluation of Skull Strength following Parietal Bone Graft Harvest

2010 ◽  
Vol 126 (5) ◽  
pp. 1492-1499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Laure ◽  
François Tranquart ◽  
Laurent Geais ◽  
Dominique Goga
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han J. Choi ◽  
Rohana K. De Silva ◽  
Darryl C. Tong ◽  
Harsha L. De Silva ◽  
Robert M. Love ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo evaluate the average thickness of the parietal bones in their different regions to identify the ideal site(s) for calvarial bone graft harvest.Methods and MaterialsThickness of the parietal bones of 25 wet cranial vaults of New Zealand European origin was measured in 135 different locations using an electronic caliper. Analyses to identify the ideal harvest sites were conducted so that the sites fit the features of an ideal harvest site described in the literature as: (1) 6 mm of minimum thickness and (2) 2 cm away from the midline.Results and ConclusionThe overall average thickness was 6.69 ± 0.22 mm. The average thickness at different sites within the same bone ranged from 2.85 to 6.93 mm. In keeping with previous studies, the report observed a progressive thickening of the parietal bone in medial and posterior directions. Of the 135 different locations measured, only 20% exceeded an average thickness of 6 mm as well as being 2 cm away from the sagittal midline. These locations were mainly located between 6 to 11 cm posterior to the coronal suture and 2 to 5 cm away from the sagittal suture.ConclusionHarvesting the calvarial bone graft in the area 6 to 11 cm posterior to the coronal suture and 2 cm away from the midline is recommended based on our study using cadaveric cranial vaults of New Zealand Europeans.


1998 ◽  
Vol 101 (10) ◽  
pp. 775-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Brück ◽  
E. Ziring ◽  
C. Giannadakis ◽  
L. Gotzen

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Sammartino ◽  
G. Marenzi ◽  
G. Colella ◽  
L. Califano ◽  
F. Grivetto ◽  
...  

Orthopedics ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Brawley ◽  
R. Bruce Simpson

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Constantinides ◽  
P. Chhabra ◽  
P. J. Turner ◽  
B. Richard

Objective: To compare the postoperative donor site morbidity and alveolar bone graft results following two different techniques for iliac crest bone graft harvest: a closed (Shepard's osteotome) and an open (trapdoor flap) technique. Design: A retrospective review of two cohorts of alveolar bone grafts performed from 1998 to 2004 in Birmingham Children's Hospital by two surgeons using different harvest techniques. Medical and nursing anesthetic notes and medication charts were reviewed. Alveolar bone graft results were assessed using preoperative and postoperative radiographic studies. Patients: A total of 137 patients underwent an operation. Of these, 109 patients were compatible with the inclusion criteria (data available, first operation, no multiple comorbidities). Sixty-four patients had iliac bone harvested using the open trapdoor technique, while 45 had the same procedure using the closed osteotomy technique. Results: Maximum bone graft volumes harvested were similar with both techniques. The mean length of hospital stay was 50.9 hours for the osteotome and 75.5 hours for the open technique group (p < .0001). The postoperative analgesia requirement was higher and the postoperative mobilization was delayed and more difficult for the open technique patients (p < .0005). Kindelan scores performed by two independent orthodontists were similar for both techniques. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that harvesting bone from the iliac crest using an osteotome technique reduces time in hospital, analgesia requirements, and postoperative donor site morbidity with no detrimental outcome.


1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 402-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Richard Hayes ◽  
Ronald W. Smith

Eighty-five patients who underwent trochanteric bone graft harvest in association with foot and ankle surgery were studied retrospectively by patient questionnaire. The average follow-up was 49 months (range, 14–101 months). Ninety-five percent of the patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure, in that they would choose to accept the trochanteric bone graft again if required to make the choice. However, 31 % of the patients acknowledged some degree of hip discomfort and 4% reported some daily pain. Nineteen of 85 patients (22%) were treated for trochanteric pain. Most patients responded to strengthening/stretching and heat/ice. Four patients (5%) had failed or delayed union of the arthrodesis in which trochanteric bone graft was utilized. The greater trochanter may be considered as an alternative for major bone graft when the iliac bone is not available and when weightbearing is restricted for at least 6 weeks after surgery. As with the use of iliac bone graft, patients should be alerted to the possibility of postoperative discomfort. Surgical details should be followed to minimize the risk of peritrochanteric fracture.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document