Literature DB >> 30034149

Reconstruction of Large Calvarial Defects Using Titanium Mesh Versus Autologous Split Thickness Calvarial Bone Grafts: A Comprehensive Comparative Evaluation of the Two Major Cranioplasty Techniques.

Colonel Priya Jeyaraj1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both alloplastic 3-D dynamic titanium mesh implants and Autogenous split calvarial cortico-cancellous bone grafts have been extensively used for cranial defect reconstruction. Whether either method is procedurally, cosmetically or therapeutically superior to the other, has rarely been studied or evaluated. AIM: The aim of the study was to objectively examine, assess, evaluate and compare the procedural ease, convenience, safety and versatility of cranioplasty performed using titanium mesh implants versus split calvarial grafts and to compare the intra- and post-operative complications encountered, and the cosmetic and therapeutic outcomes achieved using these two cranioplasty techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 40 patients with large post-craniectomy defects, who underwent cranioplasty between 2012 and 2016. Twenty patients underwent cranioplasty with titanium mesh implants and 20 with split calvarial cortico-cancellous bone grafts. Post-operative follow-up ranged from 1 to 5 years and the patients were observed (clinically as well as by means of radiographs and CT scans) for cosmetic, functional and neurological improvements.
RESULTS: Titanium mesh cranioplasty afforded more benefits, such as a shorter operating time, ease in manipulation, absence of donor-site morbidity, usefulness in previously infected or compromised recipient sites, absence of the risk of graft resorption or rejection, and a ready means to aspirate any post-operative epidural collection through its mesh structure. It also compared favorably when the cranial defects were large, owing to its, so to speak, limitless supply viz a viz, the relative paucity of harvestable split calvarial bone autograft.
CONCLUSION: Both modalities have their pros and cons. Split calvarial grafting is the more physiologic and less expensive option, useful for small- to medium-sized defects, while titanium mesh is the safer, more versatile, reliable and often preferred option, particularly when the cranial defects are large and also in severe head injury patients in whom harvesting calvarial bone could further compromise the already traumatized calvarium with possible stress fractures, further endangering its vital contents.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alloplasts; Autogenous grafts; Calvarial defect; Cranioplasty; Extradural hematoma (EDH); Motor Trephine Syndrome (MTS); Neurosensory deficits; Split thickness cortico-cancellous graft (CCG); Subdural hematoma (SDH); Surgical site infection (SSI); Titanium mesh

Year:  2017        PMID: 30034149      PMCID: PMC6028346          DOI: 10.1007/s12663-017-1047-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg        ISSN: 0972-8270


  18 in total

1.  Comparison of acrylic and titanium cranioplasty.

Authors:  Yahia Z Al-Tamimi; Priyank Sinha; Mili Trivedi; Craig Robson; Tamara A Al-Musawi; Naveed Hossain; Christopher Mumford; Gerry Towns
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-06-11       Impact factor: 1.596

2.  Cranioplasty with split-thickness calvarial bone.

Authors:  A Inoue; S Satoh; K Sekiguchi; Y Ibuchi; S Katoh; K Ota; S Fujimori
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Anatomic basis for vascularized outer-table calvarial bone flaps.

Authors:  R Casanova; D Cavalcante; J C Grotting; L O Vasconez; J M Psillakis
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Autogenous bone grafts taken from the calvarium for facial and cranial applications.

Authors:  P Tessier
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 2.017

5.  Comparison of Autogenous and Alloplastic Cranioplasty Materials Following Impact Testing.

Authors:  Robert D Wallace; Craig Salt; Petros Konofaos
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Autogenous skull cranioplasty: fresh and preserved (frozen), with consideration of the cellular response.

Authors:  D J Prolo; K P Burres; W T McLaughlin; A H Christensen
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 7.  Bone autografting of the calvaria and craniofacial skeleton: historical background, surgical results in a series of 15 patients, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Marco Artico; Luigi Ferrante; Francesco Saverio Pastore; Epimenio Orlando Ramundo; Davide Cantarelli; Domenico Scopelliti; Giorgio Iannetti
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  2003-07

8.  Reconstruction of craniofacial bony defects using autogenous bone grafts: a retrospective study on 233 patients.

Authors:  Valentino Valentini; Andrea Cassoni; Tito M Marianetti; Fabio Romano; Valentina Terenzi; Giorgio Iannetti
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.046

Review 9.  Autologous and acrylic cranioplasty: a review of 10 years and 258 cases.

Authors:  Daniel R Klinger; Christoper Madden; Joseph Beshay; Jonathan White; Kenneth Gambrell; Kim Rickert
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.104

10.  Split calvarial bone graft for the reconstruction of skull defects.

Authors:  Amit Agrawal; Lakshmi N Garg
Journal:  J Surg Tech Case Rep       Date:  2011-01
View more
  3 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

Review 2.  Paradigm Shift in Materials for Skull Reconstruction Facilitated by Science and Technological Integration.

Authors:  Arushi Beri; Sweta G Pisulkar; Akansha V Bansod; Chinmayee Dahihandekar
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-09-03

3.  Use of an Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft to Address a Contour Deformity in the Temporal Fossa: A Novel Application.

Authors:  Raghav Gupta; Nicholas C Oleck; Nitesh V Patel; Ira Goldstein
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-10-17
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.