Literature DB >> 19319063

Demineralized bone matrix and resorbable mesh bilaminate cranioplasty: a novel method for reconstruction of large-scale defects in the pediatric calvaria.

Mimi T Chao1, Shao Jiang, Darren Smith, Gary E DeCesare, Gregory M Cooper, Ian F Pollack, John Girotto, Joseph E Losee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with large-scale calvarial defects often lose the osteogenic potential of their dura before developing a diploic space sufficient to facilitate harvest of split-thickness calvarial grafts. The authors present their experience using demineralized bone matrix and resorbable mesh bilaminate for the repair of large-scale cranial defects in pediatric patients.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the Cleft-Craniofacial Center database at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was performed from 2003 through 2007. Patients who underwent cranioplasties using demineralized bone matrix and resorbable mesh bilaminate were identified. Indications, defect size, quantity of demineralized bone matrix used, complications, follow-up, and computed tomographic scans were reviewed.
RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent 13 skull reconstructions using demineralized bone matrix and resorbable mesh bilaminate cranioplasty. Mean age was 3.6 years (range, 2.1 to 4.9 years); average defect size was 30.8 cm (range, 6.6 to 80.0 cm). Mean clinical follow-up was 29.3 months (range, 13.4 to 41.8 months). All patients had follow-up computed tomographic scans. The average time of follow-up scan was 18.7 months postoperatively (range, 6.9 to 32.6 months). Seven patients had immediate postoperative scans in addition to long-term follow-up scans, facilitating the calculation of a 98 percent average defect healing (range, 95 to 100 percent). All patients had clinically stable cranial reconstructions at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: When autogenous bone is not available, demineralized bone matrix and resorbable mesh bilaminate cranioplasty is an alternative method of calvarial reconstruction when used in a healthy site free of scarring or infection. This cranioplasty technique has provided consistent bony regeneration, with no donor-site morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19319063     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819ba46f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  8 in total

1.  Cranioplasty for large-sized calvarial defects in the pediatric population: a review.

Authors:  Sandi Lam; Justin Kuether; Abigail Fong; Russell Reid
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2014-11-20

Review 2.  Bioinspired Collagen Scaffolds in Cranial Bone Regeneration: From Bedside to Bench.

Authors:  Justine C Lee; Elizabeth J Volpicelli
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 9.933

3.  Cranioplasties following craniectomies in children-a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Vita M Klieverik; Kai J Miller; Kuo Sen Han; Ash Singhal; Michael Vassilyadi; Charles J Touchette; Alexander G Weil; Peter A Woerdeman
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2018-12-15       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 4.  Cranioplasty after craniectomy in pediatric patients-a systematic review.

Authors:  Vita M Klieverik; Kai J Miller; Ash Singhal; Kuo Sen Han; Peter A Woerdeman
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Long-Term Characterization of Cranial Defects After Surgical Correction for Single-Suture Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Gary B Skolnick; Sindhoora Murthy; Kamlesh B Patel; Zhiyang Huang; Sybill D Naidoo; Tao Ju; Matthew D Smyth; Albert S Woo
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.539

6.  Design of 3D Additively Manufactured Hybrid Structures for Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Roberto De Santis; Teresa Russo; Julietta V Rau; Ida Papallo; Massimo Martorelli; Antonio Gloria
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.623

Review 7.  Low-Cost Cranioplasty-A Systematic Review of 3D Printing in Medicine.

Authors:  Wojciech Czyżewski; Jakub Jachimczyk; Zofia Hoffman; Michał Szymoniuk; Jakub Litak; Marcin Maciejewski; Krzysztof Kura; Radosław Rola; Kamil Torres
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.748

Review 8.  A Narrative Review of Cell-Based Approaches for Cranial Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Maria I Falguera Uceda; Silvia Sánchez-Casanova; Clara Escudero-Duch; Nuria Vilaboa
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 6.321

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.