CASE OF GALVANIC SYNDROME AFTER CRANIOPLASTY BY A TITANIUM IMPLANT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF NEOOSTEOGENESIS CELLS OF THE SKULL BONES
https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2023-10-3-223-228
Abstract
There was a constant searing pain in the right side of the head and a face that was not buying analgesics in a 61-year-old woman, after surgery in 2018 to remove a meningioma in the right frontal lobe followed by a cranioplasty titanium implant. Evaluation of immune status revealed that the allergological test for titanium was positive. According to the results of the MR-study of data for continued growth of the tumor, as well as signs of vasonary conflict of the trigeminal nerve.
The possible development of the galvanic syndrome in patient has been suggested. Thus, the decision to remove the titanium implant has been made. During the operation, the presence of galvanic current (from 3–46 μA) on the titanium plate surface was documented and instrumentally confirmed.
Under the titanium implant during the operation, ectopic foci of neoosteogenesis were visualized. The condition improved in the form of a complete regression of pain syndrome after removing the titanium implant.
The present clinical case is the world’s first description of the development of galvanic syndrome on the surface of titanium cranioplastic mesh. The presence of electroplating repair of bone tissue can be a new step in solving the problem of closing skull defects in neurosurgical patients.
About the Authors
V. E. Trofimov
Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery, branch of Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valeriy E. Trofimov, neurosurgeon, resident, Department of Neurosurgery with a course in neurophysiology, Institute of Medical Education
Mayakovskaya str., 12, Saint Petersburg, 191014
N. E. Voinov
Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery, branch of Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikita E. Voinov, neurosurgeon, resident, Department of Neurosurgery with a course in neurophysiology, Institute of Medical Education, specialist in scientific and analytical work, World-Class Research Centre, “Center for Personalized Oncology”
Mayakovskaya str., 12, Saint Petersburg, 191014
G. Yu. Rybakov
Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery, branch of Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gennadiy Yu. Rybakov, anesthesiologist, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery
Mayakovskaya str., 12, Saint Petersburg, 191014
V. Ya. Kalmens
Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery, branch of Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vyacheslav Ya. Kalmens, MD, neurosurgeon, department of brain and spine cord tumors № 4, Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery
Mayakovskaya str., 12, Saint Petersburg, 191014
K. A. Samochernykh
Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery, branch of Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Konstantin A. Samochernykh, D.M.Sc., Director, Polenov Russian Research Institute of Neurosurgery
Mayakovskaya str., 12, Saint Petersburg, 191014
References
1. Podzimek S, Tomka M, Sommerova P, et al. Immune markers in oral discomfort patients before and after elimination of oral galvanism. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013; 34(8):802–808.
2. Borisova EG, Komova AA, Verbitsky ES, et al. Galvanosis of the oral cavity. Actual problems in dentistry. 2019; 1:5–9.
3. Ponyakina ID, Mitronin AV Sagan NN, et al. Detection of electric currents in oral cavity determining pathologic galvanic syndrome. Endodontics Today. 2007; 1:34–38.
4. Lambert DMH, Mann PC, Sonesson A, et al. Implant-Related Galvanic Pain A Case Report. J Mass Dent Soc. 2016; 65(3):26–29.
5. Serhel EV, Pursanova AE. Galvanic Syndrome in the Oral Cavity. Medical Online Conference Bulletin. 2015; 11(5):1362.
6. . Tan L, Hu Y, Hou Y, et al. Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells by silica/calcium micro-galvanic effects on the titanium surface. J Mater Chem B. 2020; 8(11):2286–2295. DOI: 10.1039/d0tb00054j.
7. Jin G, Qin H, Cao H, et al. Zn/Ag micro-galvanic couples formed on titanium and osseointegration effects in the presence of S. aureus. Biomaterials. 2015; 10(65):22–31. DOI:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.06.040.
8. Zhu S, Chen Y, Lin F, et al. Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2021; 84:66–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.12.009.
9. Hill CS, Luoma AM, Wilson SR, et al. Titanium cranioplasty and the prediction of complications. Br J Neurosurg. 2012; 26(6):832–837. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2012.692839.
10. Sahoo NK, Tomar K, Thakral A, et al. Complications of Cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29(5):1344–1348. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004478.
Review
For citations:
Trofimov V.E., Voinov N.E., Rybakov G.Yu., Kalmens V.Ya., Samochernykh K.A. CASE OF GALVANIC SYNDROME AFTER CRANIOPLASTY BY A TITANIUM IMPLANT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF NEOOSTEOGENESIS CELLS OF THE SKULL BONES. Translational Medicine. 2023;10(3):223-228. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2023-10-3-223-228
Views:
502
Email this article 