Zhi Yang Ng1, Wei Jie Jensen Ang, Irfan Nawaz. 1. From the *Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore; †College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom; and ‡Division of Neurosurgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has emerged as one of the most promising alloplastic materials for calvarial reconstruction because of a number of desirable qualities including resistance to heat and ionizing radiation, biocompatibility, biomechanically similar to native bone, and being nonferromagnetic for postoperative monitoring. We aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of alloplastic cranioplasty performed with PEEK, titanium mesh only (Ti-only), and titanium mesh with acrylic cement (Ti-AC); titanium mesh has previously recorded many successes with low complication rates. METHODS: A retrospective, single-surgeon, single-center study for alloplastic cranioplasties was performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Titanium meshes were fashioned intraoperatively, whereas PEEK implants were prefabricated from high-resolution computed tomography scans. Patients were routinely followed up in outpatient settings. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (75% male) underwent delayed cranioplasty following initial craniectomy. Four Ti-only and 3 Ti-AC patients had postoperative complications including wound breakdown and implant exposure. These assumed a bimodal distribution with time postoperatively and culminated in implant removal in 6 patients, of which 4 required further plastic flap coverage. Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in predictive factors apart from cranioplasty material with means as follows: age = 42 years, interval to surgery = 10 months, defect size = 12 × 9 cm, operation duration = 181 minutes, hospital stay = 13 days, follow-up = 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Early results suggest that PEEK may be superior to Ti-only or Ti-AC as an alloplastic cranioplasty choice. Further research should include randomized trials between computer-aided, prefabricated titanium and PEEK cranioplasties with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.
BACKGROUND:Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has emerged as one of the most promising alloplastic materials for calvarial reconstruction because of a number of desirable qualities including resistance to heat and ionizing radiation, biocompatibility, biomechanically similar to native bone, and being nonferromagnetic for postoperative monitoring. We aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of alloplastic cranioplasty performed with PEEK, titanium mesh only (Ti-only), and titanium mesh with acrylic cement (Ti-AC); titanium mesh has previously recorded many successes with low complication rates. METHODS: A retrospective, single-surgeon, single-center study for alloplastic cranioplasties was performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Titanium meshes were fashioned intraoperatively, whereas PEEK implants were prefabricated from high-resolution computed tomography scans. Patients were routinely followed up in outpatient settings. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (75% male) underwent delayed cranioplasty following initial craniectomy. Four Ti-only and 3 Ti-ACpatients had postoperative complications including wound breakdown and implant exposure. These assumed a bimodal distribution with time postoperatively and culminated in implant removal in 6 patients, of which 4 required further plastic flap coverage. Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in predictive factors apart from cranioplasty material with means as follows: age = 42 years, interval to surgery = 10 months, defect size = 12 × 9 cm, operation duration = 181 minutes, hospital stay = 13 days, follow-up = 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Early results suggest that PEEK may be superior to Ti-only or Ti-AC as an alloplastic cranioplasty choice. Further research should include randomized trials between computer-aided, prefabricated titanium and PEEK cranioplasties with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.
Authors: Jonathan M Bekisz; Roberto L Flores; Lukasz Witek; Christopher D Lopez; Christopher M Runyan; Andrea Torroni; Bruce N Cronstein; Paulo G Coelho Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Jakob V E Gerstl; Luis F Rendon; Shane M Burke; Joanne Doucette; Rania A Mekary; Timothy R Smith Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Chad R Gordon; Ryan J Murphy; Mehran Armand; Peter Liacouras; Jon Weingart; Judy Huang; Henry Brem; Michael Lim Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.046