BACKGROUND: The use of alloplastic material in cranial reconstruction has been well described in the adult population, especially when a paucity of autologous tissue exists. In children it is unknown how long-term growth, however, may be affected by the implantation of nonexpansible alloplastic material. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing alloplastic versus autologous cranial reconstruction. METHODS: To assess the safety and long-term outcomes of alloplastic cranioplasty in children, an institutional review board-approved, retrospective, single institution review of pediatric patients undergoing cranioplasty was performed from 2000 to 2014. The age at surgery, cause of the cranial defect, defect size, time since initial surgery to reconstruction, implant type, and complications were assessed. Postreconstruction imaging was reviewed if available. RESULTS: A reconstructive cranioplasty was performed in 41 pediatric patients (ages 1-19 years, average 7.35 years). Thirty patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction (age 4.37 ± 5.57 years), and 11 underwent autologous reconstruction (age 2.00 ± 3.74 years). The size of the cranial defects was 144.01 ± 393.04 cm for autologous and 405.31 ± 572.96 cm for alloplastic reconstructions. Follow-up for all patients was an average of 2.33 ± 2.76 years (0.1-9 years). No patients in either group showed evidence of elevated intracranial pressure after cranioplasty. In long-term follow-up, none of the implants were exposed or lost because of infection. Computed tomography and physical examination demonstrated that there was no skull growth restriction in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that alloplastic cranioplasty in the pediatric population is a safe alternative, when autologous cranial bone is not available.
BACKGROUND: The use of alloplastic material in cranial reconstruction has been well described in the adult population, especially when a paucity of autologous tissue exists. In children it is unknown how long-term growth, however, may be affected by the implantation of nonexpansible alloplastic material. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of pediatric patients undergoing alloplastic versus autologous cranial reconstruction. METHODS: To assess the safety and long-term outcomes of alloplastic cranioplasty in children, an institutional review board-approved, retrospective, single institution review of pediatric patients undergoing cranioplasty was performed from 2000 to 2014. The age at surgery, cause of the cranial defect, defect size, time since initial surgery to reconstruction, implant type, and complications were assessed. Postreconstruction imaging was reviewed if available. RESULTS: A reconstructive cranioplasty was performed in 41 pediatric patients (ages 1-19 years, average 7.35 years). Thirty patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction (age 4.37 ± 5.57 years), and 11 underwent autologous reconstruction (age 2.00 ± 3.74 years). The size of the cranial defects was 144.01 ± 393.04 cm for autologous and 405.31 ± 572.96 cm for alloplastic reconstructions. Follow-up for all patients was an average of 2.33 ± 2.76 years (0.1-9 years). No patients in either group showed evidence of elevated intracranial pressure after cranioplasty. In long-term follow-up, none of the implants were exposed or lost because of infection. Computed tomography and physical examination demonstrated that there was no skull growth restriction in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that alloplastic cranioplasty in the pediatric population is a safe alternative, when autologous cranial bone is not available.
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
Authors: David S Hersh; Hanna J Anderson; Graeme F Woodworth; Jonathan E Martin; Yusuf M Khan Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: C Iaccarino; A Kolias; P D Adelson; A M Rubiano; E Viaroli; A Buki; G Cinalli; K Fountas; T Khan; S Signoretti; V Waran; A O Adeleye; R Amorim; A Bertuccio; A Cama; R M Chesnut; P De Bonis; A Estraneo; A Figaji; S I Florian; R Formisano; P Frassanito; C Gatos; A Germanò; C Giussani; I Hossain; P Kasprzak; F La Porta; D Lindner; A I R Maas; W Paiva; P Palma; K B Park; P Peretta; A Pompucci; J Posti; S K Sengupta; A Sinha; V Sinha; R Stefini; G Talamonti; A Tasiou; G Zona; M Zucchelli; P J Hutchinson; F Servadei Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 2.216