Literature DB >> 25681593

Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts.

Jaakko M Piitulainen1, Tommi Kauko2, Kalle M J Aitasalo3, Ville Vuorinen4, Pekka K Vallittu5, Jussi P Posti4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Using current surgical methods, cranioplasty is associated with a high complication rate. We analyzed if there are preexisting medical conditions associated with complications and compared the effect of different implant materials on the degree of complications.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of all patients who underwent cranioplasty for cranial bone defects during the period 2002-2012 was conducted, and 100 consecutive cranioplasty procedures that met eligibility criteria were identified. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups, which were created based on the cranioplasty material: autograft (n = 20), bioactive fiber-reinforced composite (n = 20), hydroxyapatite (n = 31), and other synthetic materials (n = 29). Survival estimates were constructed with Kaplan-Meier curves, and the differences between categorical variable levels were determined using a log-rank test. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using a Šidák correction.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up time of 14 months (interquartile range 3-39 months), 32 of 100 patients (32.0%) developed at least 1 complication. A minor complication occurred in 13 patients (13.0%), whereas 19 patients (19.0%) developed a major complication, which required reoperation or removal of the implant. In the autograft subgroup, 40.0% of patients required removal of the cranioplasty. The 3-year survival of the autograft subgroup was lower compared with other subgroups of synthetic materials. In hydroxyapatite and bioactive fiber-reinforced composite groups, fewer complications were observed compared with the autograft group.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, synthetic materials for cranial bone defect reconstruction exhibit more promising outcomes compared with autograft. There were differences in survival rates among synthetic materials.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autograft; Bioactive glass; Bioglass; Biomaterials; Craniectomy; Cranioplasty; FRC; Fiber-reinforced composite; Skull bone defect

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25681593     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  34 in total

1.  Bone healing in rabbit calvarial critical-sized defects filled with stem cells and growth factors combined with granular or solid scaffolds.

Authors:  Olli-Pekka Lappalainen; Sakari Karhula; Marianne Haapea; Laura Kyllönen; Suvi Haimi; Susanna Miettinen; Simo Saarakkala; Jarkko Korpi; Leena P Ylikontiola; Willy S Serlo; George K Sándor
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 2.  The storage of skull bone flaps for autologous cranioplasty: literature review.

Authors:  Vicente Mirabet; Daniel García; Nuria Yagüe; Luis Roberto Larrea; Cristina Arbona; Carlos Botella
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 1.522

Review 3.  Self-Inflicted Hammer Blows to the Cranial Vault: An Interdisciplinary Challenge.

Authors:  Seong Woong Kim; Michael Putzke; Eberhard Uhl; Kartik G Krishnan
Journal:  Prim Care Companion CNS Disord       Date:  2016-06-30

Review 4.  Problems of reconstructive cranioplasty after traumatic brain injury in children.

Authors:  Paolo Frassanito; Gianpiero Tamburrini; Luca Massimi; Simone Peraio; Massimo Caldarelli; Concezio Di Rocco
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 5.  The Materials Utilized in Cranial Reconstruction: Past, Current, and Future.

Authors:  Haley Meyer; Syed I Khalid; Amir H Dorafshar; Richard W Byrne
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 0.558

6.  Outcomes of Cranioplasty Strategies for High-Risk Complex Cranial Defects: A 10-Year Experience.

Authors:  Edgar Soto; Ryan D Restrepo; John H Grant; René P Myers
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 1.763

7.  German Cranial Reconstruction Registry (GCRR): protocol for a prospective, multicentre, open registry.

Authors:  Henrik Giese; Thomas Sauvigny; Oliver W Sakowitz; Michael Bierschneider; Erdem Güresir; Christian Henker; Julius Höhne; Dirk Lindner; Dorothee Mielke; Robert Pannewitz; Veit Rohde; Martin Scholz; Patrick Schuss; Jan Regelsberger
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Fenestration of bone flap during interval autologous cranioplasty.

Authors:  Ha Son Nguyen; Ninh Doan; Christopher Wolfla; Glen Pollock
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-12-24

9.  Polymethylmethacrylate imbedded with antibiotics cranioplasty: An infection solution for moderate and large defects reconstruction?

Authors:  Paulo Valdeci Worm; Tobias Ludwig do Nascimento; Fabricio do Couto Nicola; Eduardo Farias Sanches; Carlos Fernando Dos Santos Moreira; Luiz Pedro Willimann Rogério; Marcelo Martins Dos Reis; Guilherme Finger; Marcus Vinicius Martins Collares
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2016-11-09

10.  Inclusion of a 3D-printed Hyperelastic Bone mesh improves mechanical and osteogenic performance of a mineralized collagen scaffold.

Authors:  Marley J Dewey; Andrey V Nosatov; Kiran Subedi; Ramille Shah; Adam Jakus; Brendan A C Harley
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 8.947

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.