Literature DB >> 28800664

Outcomes of Cranioplasty with Preformed Titanium versus Freehand Molded Polymethylmethacrylate Implants.

Julius Höhne1, Korbinian Werzmirzowsky1, Christian Ott1, Christoph Hohenberger1, Bahaa Ghareb Hassanin1,2, Alexander Brawanski1, Karl-Michael Schebesch1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cranioplasty reshapes the neurocranium and viscerocranium after craniectomy. Different materials have been used for cranioplasty. However, no consistent data are yet available comparing these different materials regarding indications, complications, and outcome. We report our experience with preformed titanium implants and freehand molded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) implants for cranioplasty.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center analysis included 120 consecutive cranioplasty patients who had been operated between 2006 and 2013. A total of 60 patients (27 women, 33 men; mean age: 54 years) had received a preformed titanium implant and 60 patients (22 women, 38 men; mean age: 46 years) a freehand molded PMMA implant. We evaluated all demographic and procedure-related data, indications, and outcome. The longest follow-up was 5.5 years.
RESULTS: The most frequent indications for cranioplasty were trauma (n = 48 [40%]), malignant infarction (n = 27 [23%]), tumor (n = 22 [18%]), spontaneous intracerebral or aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (n = 16 [13%]), revision surgery (n = 5 [4%]), and empyema (n = 2 [2%]). PMMA implants were more often associated with wound-healing disorders (p < 0.023; odds ratio [OR]: 10.53) and epidural hematoma (p < 0.03; OR: 8.46), resulting in a significantly higher re-operation rate (p < 0.005). Precise fitting was radiologically confirmed in 98% of titanium implants but in only 71% of PMMA implants (p < 0.001). Magnetic resonance imaging of patients with titanium implants (n = 4) did not show any relevant artifacts.
CONCLUSION: Cranioplasty with preformed titanium implants seems to be superior to freehand molded PMMA implants regarding surgical morbidity, revision rate, and aesthetic results. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28800664     DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg        ISSN: 2193-6315            Impact factor:   1.268


  5 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Amorphous Silicon Oxynitrophosphide-Coated Implants Boost Angiogenic Activity of Endothelial Cells.

Authors:  Felipe A do Monte; Kamal R Awad; Neelam Ahuja; Harry K W Kim; Pranesh Aswath; Marco Brotto; Venu G Varanasi
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.845

3.  Meningioma infiltrating into porous polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty-report of a unique case.

Authors:  Karl-Michael Schebesch; Martin Proescholdt; Nils Ole Schmidt; Julius Höhne
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2020-06-19

4.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Patient-Specific Polymethylmethacrylate Cranial Implants for Virtual Surgical Planning: An In-Vitro Study.

Authors:  Bilal Msallem; Michaela Maintz; Florian S Halbeisen; Simon Meyer; Guido R Sigron; Neha Sharma; Shuaishuai Cao; Florian M Thieringer
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Early experience with patient-specific low-cost 3D-printed polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty implants in a lower-middle-income-country: Technical note and economic analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad Ashraf; Nabeel Choudhary; Usman Ahmad Kamboh; Muhammad Asif Raza; Kashif Ali Sultan; Naseeruddin Ghulam; Syed Shahzad Hussain; Naveed Ashraf
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2022-06-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.