Literature DB >> 28377284

Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Maria Punchak1, Lawrance K Chung1, Carlito Lagman1, Timothy T Bui1, Jorge Lazareff1, Kameron Rezzadeh2, Reza Jarrahy2, Isaac Yang3.   

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been used in cranioplasty since the early 2000s. However, there remains limited data that compares its long-term complication rate to autologous grafts and titanium mesh implants. To compare complication and implant failure rates after PEEK, autologous and titanium mesh cranioplasties, the authors of this study conducted a systematic review using the PubMed database. Studies that contained outcome data on complication rates of PEEK cranioplasty patients and studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent PEEK cranioplasties versus other materials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios using the Mantel-Haenszel method were used for analysis. Fifteen articles, comprised of 183 PEEK cranioplasty patients were included. Of these patients, 15.3% developed post-operative complications and 8.7% experienced implant failure requiring reoperation. Patients who underwent cranioplasties with PEEK implants had 0.130 times the odds of developing post-operative complications (P=0.065) and 0.574 times the odds of implant failure compared to patients with autologous bone graft cranioplasties (P=0.629). Patients who had undergone PEEK cranioplasties had 0.127 times the odds of developing post-op complications (P=0.360) and 0.170 times the odds of implant failure compared to individuals who had undergone titanium mesh cranioplasties (P=0.168). The analysis was severely limited by the paucity in literature. However, there was a trend toward lower post-operative complication rates following PEEK cranioplasty versus autologous grafts, and lower implant failure rates with PEEK versus titanium mesh implants.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cranioplasty; Meta-analysis; Outcomes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28377284     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.03.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  21 in total

1.  Custom made onlay implants in peek in maxillofacial surgery: a volumetric study.

Authors:  G Saponaro; P Doneddu; G Gasparini; Edoardo Staderini; R Boniello; M Todaro; G D'Amato; S Pelo; A Moro
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 1.475

2.  Deformation of cranioplasty titanium mesh in a paediatric patient following head trauma.

Authors:  Basel Sharaf; Malke Asaad; Joseph Banuelos; Jesse Meaike
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2019-06-11

3.  Bone formation in custom-made cranioplasty: evidence of early and sustained bone development in bioceramic calcium phosphate implants. Patient series.

Authors:  Jimmy Sundblom; Fabjola Xheka; Olivera Casar-Borota; Mats Ryttlefors
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2021-04-26

Review 4.  Characterisation of Selected Materials in Medical Applications.

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

5.  Patient-specific PEEK implants for immediate restoration of temporal fossa after maxillary reconstruction with temporalis muscle flap.

Authors:  Sherif Ali; Omniya Abdel Aziz; Mamdouh Ahmed
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-05-07

6.  Prosthetic rehabilitation in neurosurgical cranioplasty.

Authors:  Thara Maria Joseph; R Ravichandran; K Harshakumar; S Lylajam
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

7.  A retrospective descriptive study of cranioplasty failure rates and contributing factors in novel 3D printed calcium phosphate implants compared to traditional materials.

Authors:  Michael Koller; Daniel Rafter; Gillian Shok; Sean Murphy; Sheena Kiaei; Uzma Samadani
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2020-06-17

8.  Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Cranioplasty Implants.

Authors:  Adam Binhammer; Josie Jakubowski; Oleh Antonyshyn; Paul Binhammer
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 0.947

Review 9.  Cranioplasty Following Decompressive Craniectomy.

Authors:  Corrado Iaccarino; Angelos G Kolias; Louis-Georges Roumy; Kostas Fountas; Amos Olufemi Adeleye
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Evaluation of titanium mesh cranioplasty and polyetheretherketone cranioplasty: protocol for a multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jingguo Yang; Tong Sun; Yikai Yuan; Xuepei Li; Hang Yu; Junwen Guan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.