New bone formation was moderate, marked, and extremeand the reduction in defect size was marked, moderate, and extreme in the MG, FF, and control groups, respectively.CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that neither the temporal MG nor the temporal FF were able to achieve complete preventionof re-ossification of the skull bone defects including the coronal suture line; further, neither material was superior to the other.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To investigate the utility of two different interpositional materials (muscle graft vs. fascia flap) for preventing the osseousreunion of skull bone defect including the coronal suture line in rats.MATERIAL and METHODS: A total of 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 2 groups (n=16 for each) after the formationof bilateral coronal bone defect, based on the interpositional materials used to prevent re-ossification; the rats were divided into themuscle graft (MG) group and the fascial flap (FF) group.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In each group, the other side of the coronal suture served as the control.The rats were sacrificed at postoperative 4 weeks or 8 weeks for histopathological, radiological, and microbiologic investigations.RESULTS: At postoperative 8 weeks, there was partial reunion in the defects with bony tissue in both the groups; no obviousdifferences were noted between the groups on radiological examination.The defect content involved bone and fibrous tissue in theMG group and bony bridges and loose connective tissue in the FF group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:New bone formation was moderate, marked, and extremeand the reduction in defect size was marked, moderate, and extreme in the MG, FF, and control groups, respectively.CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that neither the temporal MG nor the temporal FF were able to achieve complete preventionof re-ossification of the skull bone defects including the coronal suture line; further, neither material was superior to the other.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Özet
AIM: To investigate the utility of two different interpositional materials (muscle graft vs. fascia flap) for preventing the osseousreunion of skull bone defect including the coronal suture line in rats.MATERIAL and METHODS: A total of 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 2 groups (n=16 for each) after the formationof bilateral coronal bone defect, based on the interpositional materials used to prevent re-ossification; the rats were divided into themuscle graft (MG) group and the fascial flap (FF) group. In each group, the other side of the coronal suture served as the control.The rats were sacrificed at postoperative 4 weeks or 8 weeks for histopathological, radiological, and microbiologic investigations.RESULTS: At postoperative 8 weeks, there was partial reunion in the defects with bony tissue in both the groups; no obviousdifferences were noted between the groups on radiological examination.The defect content involved bone and fibrous tissue in theMG group and bony bridges and loose connective tissue in the FF group. New bone formation was moderate, marked, and extremeand the reduction in defect size was marked, moderate, and extreme in the MG, FF, and control groups, respectively.CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that neither the temporal MG nor the temporal FF were able to achieve complete preventionof re-ossification of the skull bone defects including the coronal suture line; further, neither material was superior to the other.
🔖
Cite This Article
OKUMUŞ, A., GÜVEN, E., ERMİŞ, İ., OLGAÇ, V., TOPALAN, M., ERER, M. (2020). Use of Muscle Graft versus Fascia Flap as Interpositional Material in Prevention of Reossification in a Rat Model of Skull Bone Defect. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1, 119–123. https://ajindex.com/articles/399183
Antikainen T: Silicon membrane interpositioning for the prevention of skull deformity following experimental craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv Syst 9:321-324, 1993 2. Antikainen T, Kallioinen M, Pohjonen T, Törmälä P, Waris T, Serlo W: Polyglycolic acid membrane interpositioning for the prevention of skull deformity following experimental craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurosurg 21:77-82, 1994 3. Arnaud E, Capon-Degardin N, Michienzi J, Di Rocco F, Renier D: Scaphocephaly part II: Secondary coronal synostosis after scaphocephalic surgical correction. J Craniofac Surg 20 Suppl 2:1843-1850, 2009 4. Calisaneller T, Bavbek M, Demirhan B, Caner H, Altinors N: The value of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in preventing early re-ossification after craniosynostosis surgery: An experimental animal study in the rat. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 146:279- 283, 2004 5. Durham EL, Howie RN, Cray JJ: Gene/environment interactions in craniosynostosis: A brief review. Orthod Craniofac Res 20 Suppl 1:8-11, 2017 6. Fatah MF, Ermis I, Poole MD, Shun-Shin GA: Prevention of cranial reossification after surgical craniectomy. J Craniofac Surg 3:170-172, 1992 7. Foster KA, Frim DM, McKinnon M: Recurrence of synostosis following surgical repair of craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:70-76, 2008 8. Ingraham FD, Alexander E Jr, Matson DD: Clinical studies in craniosynostosis analysis of 50 cases and description of a method of surgical treatment. Surgery 24:518-541, 1948 9. Joly A, Paré A, Sallot A, Arsène S, Listrat A, Travers N, Goga D, Laure B: Long-term assessment of suturectomy in trigonocephaly and anterior plagiocephaly. J Craniofac Surg 27:627-630, 2016 10. Langenskiöld A: Surgical treatment of partial closure of the growth plate. J Pediatr Orthop 1:3, 1981 11. Langenskiöld A: The possibility of eliminating premature parcial closure of an epiphyseal plate caused by trauma or disease. Acta Orthap Scand 38:267, 1967 12. Mardas N, Kostopoulos L, Karring T: Bone and suture regeneration in calvarial defects by e-PTFE-membranes and demineralized bonematrix and the impact on calvarial growth: An experimental study in the rat. J Craniofac Surg 13:453- 462, 2002 13. Merikanto JE, Alhopuro S, Ritsilä VA: Free fat transplant prevents osseous reunion of skull defects. A new approach in the treatment of craniosynostosis. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 21:183-188, 1987 14. Opperman LA: Cranial sutures as intramembranous bone growth sites. Dev Dyn 219:472-485, 2000 15. Rachmiel A, Sugihara T