J Jonkergouw1, S E C M van de Vijfeijken2, E Nout3, T Theys4, E Van de Casteele5, H Folkersma6, P R A M Depauw7, A G Becking8. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.e.vandevijfeijken@amc.uva.nl. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 5. iMinds-Vision Lab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Belgium. 6. Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Neurosurgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The best material choice for cranioplasty following craniectomy remains a subject to discussion. Complication rates after cranioplasty tend to be high. Computer-assisted 3-dimensional modelling of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was recently introduced for cranial reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient- and surgery-related characteristics and risk factors that predispose patients to cranioplasty complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 40 cranial PEEK implants in 38 patients, performed at two reference centers in the Netherlands from 2011 to 2014. Complications were registered and patient- and surgery-related data were carefully analysed. RESULTS: The overall complication rate of PEEK cranioplasty was 28%. Complications included infection (13 %), postoperative haematoma (10 %), cerebrospinal fluid leak (2.5 %) and wound-related problems (2.5 %). All postoperative infections required removal of the implant. Nonetheless removed implants could be successfully re-used after re-sterilization. CONCLUSION: Although overall complication rates after PEEK cranioplasty remain high, outcomes are satisfactory, as our results compare favourably to recent literature reports on cranial vault reconstruction.
OBJECTIVE: The best material choice for cranioplasty following craniectomy remains a subject to discussion. Complication rates after cranioplasty tend to be high. Computer-assisted 3-dimensional modelling of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was recently introduced for cranial reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient- and surgery-related characteristics and risk factors that predispose patients to cranioplasty complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 40 cranial PEEK implants in 38 patients, performed at two reference centers in the Netherlands from 2011 to 2014. Complications were registered and patient- and surgery-related data were carefully analysed. RESULTS: The overall complication rate of PEEK cranioplasty was 28%. Complications included infection (13 %), postoperative haematoma (10 %), cerebrospinal fluid leak (2.5 %) and wound-related problems (2.5 %). All postoperative infections required removal of the implant. Nonetheless removed implants could be successfully re-used after re-sterilization. CONCLUSION: Although overall complication rates after PEEK cranioplasty remain high, outcomes are satisfactory, as our results compare favourably to recent literature reports on cranial vault reconstruction.
Authors: Kacper Kroczek; Paweł Turek; Damian Mazur; Jacek Szczygielski; Damian Filip; Robert Brodowski; Krzysztof Balawender; Łukasz Przeszłowski; Bogumił Lewandowski; Stanisław Orkisz; Artur Mazur; Grzegorz Budzik; Józef Cebulski; Mariusz Oleksy Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 4.967