Literature DB >> 29098278

Cranioplasty Using a Mixture of Biologic and Nonbiologic Agents.

Demetri Arnaoutakis1, Arash Bahrami2, Jason E Cohn2, Jesse E Smith3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: A surgeon faces challenges with cranioplasty techniques to achieve a successful result with relatively few complications.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a unique technique for incorporating both biologic autologous bone and nonbiologic allograft materials for defect coverage in cranioplasty with favorable outcomes and low occurrence of complications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective medical records review of all 26 patients who underwent primary cranioplasty procedure with a modified technique between January 2011 and December 2015 at a high-volume head and neck oncologic reconstructive practice was conducted; data analysis was also performed during that period. After several years of experience with traditional cranioplasty maneuvers, the modified technique has evolved to incorporate both autologous bone grafts and alloplastic materials in the formation of a shapeable on-lay material. Data were collected on demographics, need for cranioplasty, materials used, outcomes, and risk factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of infection, hematoma, flap loss or resorption, cerebrospinal fluid leak, hardware exposure or malfunction, and repeated reconstruction.
RESULTS: Of the 26 patients, 21 (81%) were men; mean (SD) age was 65.8 (14.3) years. Eight (31%) patients had a history of diabetes, 4 (15%) patients were receiving immunosuppressive drugs, and 5 (19%) patients were active smokers at the time of surgery. Neoplasia was the most common cause of the calvarial defect seen, responsible for 20 of 28 (71%) operative defects and necessitated procedures. All but 1 patient achieved successful mineralization following primary cranioplasty with the modified technique; this success was verified based on physical examination and follow-up imaging. Complications were rare and involved only 3 patients who developed postoperative infection; 1 (4%) of these patients lost the integrity of the cranioplasty. Thus, the rate of infection was 11% and loss rate was 4%. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy appeared to have no bearing on graft survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results using a unique technique for incorporating both biologic autologous bone and nonbiologic allograft materials for defect coverage in cranioplasty are favorable, with satisfactory aesthetic outcomes and limited postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29098278      PMCID: PMC5833661          DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2017.0437

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg        ISSN: 2168-6076            Impact factor:   4.611


  28 in total

1.  Full-Thickness Scalp Defects Reconstructed With Outer Table Calvarial Decortication and Surface Grafting.

Authors:  Jordan P Sand; Jason A Diaz; Brian Nussenbaum; Jason T Rich
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 4.611

2.  Long-term clinical outcome analysis of poly-methyl-methacrylate cranioplasty for large skull defects.

Authors:  Joby Jaberi; Kenneth Gambrell; Paul Tiwana; Chris Madden; Rick Finn
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.895

3.  Clinical outcome in cranioplasty: critical review in long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez; Ian T Jackson; Takeshi Miyawaki; Khaled Barakat; Vincent DiNick
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.046

Review 4.  The use of synthetics in cranioplasty: a clinical review.

Authors:  D P Blake
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 1.437

5.  Clinical outcomes in cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of reconstructive material.

Authors:  Sashank Reddy; Saami Khalifian; José M Flores; Justin Bellamy; Paul N Manson; Eduardo D Rodriguez; Amir H Dorafshar
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Patient-specific polymethylmethacrylate prostheses for secondary reconstruction of large calvarial defects: A retrospective feasibility study of a new intraoperative moulding device for cranioplasty.

Authors:  Manuel Moser; Raphael Schmid; Ralf Schindel; Gerhard Hildebrandt
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Reconstruction of a Post-Traumatic Maxillary Ridge Using a Radial Forearm Free Flap and Immediate Tissue Engineering (Bone Morphogenetic Protein, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Cortical-Cancellous Bone): Case Report.

Authors:  James C Melville; Ramzey Tursun; J Marshall Green; Robert E Marx
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Autologous immediate cranioplasty with vascularized bone in high-risk composite cranial defects.

Authors:  Justine C Lee; Grant M Kleiber; Aaron T Pelletier; Russell R Reid; Lawrence J Gottlieb
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Carbonated apatite and hydroxyapatite in craniofacial reconstruction.

Authors:  Kevin K Mathur; Sherard A Tatum; Robert M Kellman
Journal:  Arch Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct

10.  Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases.

Authors:  Mario Zanaty; Nohra Chalouhi; Robert M Starke; Shannon W Clark; Cory D Bovenzi; Mark Saigh; Eric Schwartz; Emily S I Kunkel; Alexandra S Efthimiadis-Budike; Pascal Jabbour; Richard Dalyai; Robert H Rosenwasser; Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 5.115

View more
  3 in total

1.  Conditioning of 3D Printed Nanoengineered Ionic-Covalent Entanglement Scaffolds with iP-hMSCs Derived Matrix.

Authors:  Candice Sears; Eli Mondragon; Zachary I Richards; Nick Sears; David Chimene; Eoin P McNeill; Carl A Gregory; Akhilesh K Gaharwar; Roland Kaunas
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2020-03-08       Impact factor: 9.933

Review 2.  Low-Cost Cranioplasty-A Systematic Review of 3D Printing in Medicine.

Authors:  Wojciech Czyżewski; Jakub Jachimczyk; Zofia Hoffman; Michał Szymoniuk; Jakub Litak; Marcin Maciejewski; Krzysztof Kura; Radosław Rola; Kamil Torres
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.748

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.