Use of a Pericranial Flap Technique for Deep Brain Stimulation Hardware Protection and Improved Cosmesis

Evolution of Deep Brain Stimulation Techniques for Complication Mitigation

Complication mitigation in deep brain stimulation has been a topic matter of much discussion in the literature. In this article, we examine how neurosurgeons as individuals and as a field generated and adapted techniques to prevent infection, lead fracture/lead migration, and suboptimal outcomes in both the acute period and longitudinally. The authors performed a MEDLINE search inclusive of articles from 1987 to June 2023 including human studies written in English. Using the Rayyan platform, two reviewers (J.P. and R.M.) performed a title screen. Of the 776 articles, 252 were selected by title screen and 172 from abstract review for full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 124 publications were evaluated. We describe the initial complications and inefficiencies at the advent of deep brain stimulation and detail changes instituted by surgeons that reduced them. Furthermore, we discuss the trend in both undesired short-term and long-term outcomes with emphasis on how surgeons recognized and modified their practice to provide safer and better procedures. This scoping review adds to the literature as a guide to both new neurosurgeons and seasoned neurosurgeons alike to understand better what innovations have been trialed over time as we embark on novel targets and neuromodulatory technologies.

Cranial stair-step incision for minimizing postoperative complications in neuro-oncologic surgery: A propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Craniotomies for tumor resection can at times result in wound complications which can be devastating in the treatment of neuro-oncological patients. A cranial stair-step technique was recently introduced as an approach to mitigate these complications, especially in this patient population who often exhibit additional risk factors including steroids, chemoradiation, and VEGF inhibitor treatments. This study evaluates our cranial stair-step approach by comparing its postoperative complications using propensity score matching with those of a standard craniotomy wound closure.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with intracranial neoplasms undergoing primary craniotomy at a single institution. Patients with prior craniotomies and less than three months of follow-up were excluded. Analyses were performed using R Studio.

RESULTS

383 patients were included in the study, 139 of whom underwent the stair-step technique while the rest underwent traditional craniotomy closures. The stair-step cohort was older, had higher ASA classes, and had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease. The stair-step patients were administered fewer steroids before (40.29% vs. 56.56%, p < 0.01) and after surgery (87.05% vs. 94.26%, p = 0.02), fewer immunotherapy (12.95% vs. 20.90%, p = 0.05), but they received more radiation preoperatively (15.11% vs. 8.61%, p = 0.05). They also underwent fewer operations for recurrences and residuals (0.72% vs. 10.66%, p = 0.01). On propensity score matching, we found 111 matched pairs with no differences except follow-up duration (p < 0.01). The stair-step group had fewer soft tissue infections (0% vs. 3.60%, p = 0.04), fewer total wound complications (0% vs. 4.50%, p = 0.02), was operated on less for these complications (0% vs. 3.60%, p = 0.04), and had a shorter length of stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.01). Notably, the average time to wound complication in our cohort was 44 days, well within our exclusion criteria and follow-up duration.

CONCLUSION

The cranial stair-step technique is safe and effective in reducing rates of wound complications and reoperation for neuro-oncologic patients requiring craniotomy.