Literature DB >> 31599560

Comparison between the different types of heterologous materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

Carlotta Morselli1,2, Ismail Zaed3, Maria P Tropeano1, Giovanni Cataletti1, Corrado Iaccarino4, Zefferino Rossini5, Franco Servadei5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The choice of heterologous materials for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy is still difficult. The aim of this study is to examine the association between material of choice and related complications to suggest the best treatment option. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed for articles reporting cranioplasty comparing the following heterologous implants: titanium, poli-methyl-methacrylate (PMMA), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and hydroxyapatite (HA). Extracted data included implant materials and incidence of the most frequent complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The final selection resulted in 106 papers but according to our rules only 27 studies were included in the final analysis. Among a total of 1688 custom-made prosthesis implanted, 649 were titanium (38.49%), 298 PMMA (17.56%), 233 PEEK (13.82%), and 508 were HA (30.13%). A total of 348 complications were recorded out of 1688 reported patients (20.64%). In the titanium group, 139 complications were recorded (21.42%); in the PMMA group 57 (19.26%), in the PEEK group 49 (21.03%) and in the HA group 103 (20.3%). If we examine a summary of the reported complications clearly related to cranioplasty (postoperative infections, fractures and prosthesis displacement) versus type of material in multicentric and prospective studies we can see how HA group patients have less reported infections and cranioplasty explantation after infections than PMMA, PEEK and titanium. On the contrary HA patients seem to have a higher number of prosthesis displacement again if compared with the other materials. Since these data are not derived from a statistically correct analysis they should be used only to help to differentiate the properties of the various heterologous cranioplasties.
CONCLUSIONS: The ideal material for all heterologous cranioplasty has not yet been identified. The choice of material should be based on the clinical data of patients, such as the craniectomy size, presence of seizures, possibility of recovery, good long-term outcome associated with a cost analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31599560     DOI: 10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04779-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Sci        ISSN: 0390-5616            Impact factor:   2.279


  9 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  From Reparative Surgery to Regenerative Surgery: State of the Art of Porous Hydroxyapatite in Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Ismail Zaed; Andrea Cardia; Roberto Stefini
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 6.208

Review 3.  State-of-Art of Standard and Innovative Materials Used in Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Valentina Siracusa; Giuseppe Maimone; Vincenzo Antonelli
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 4.329

4.  Time to define what is pediatric in cranial reconstruction.

Authors:  Ismail Zaed; Franco Servadei
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 1.532

5.  A new device for bone cranial flap fixation: Technical note and surgical remarks. A multicentric experience.

Authors:  Manolo Piccirilli; Giannantonio Spena; Enrico Marchese; Maria Pia Tropeano; Antonio Santoro
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2021-02-23

6.  Epidural Effusion as Allergic Reaction Following Polyetheretherketone Cranioplasty: An Illustrative Case and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Lisa B Shields; Meena Vessell; Ian S Mutchnick
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-18

7.  A Multicentric European Clinical Study on Custom-Made Porous Hydroxyapatite Cranioplasty in a Pediatric Population.

Authors:  Ismail Zaed; Adrian Safa; Piero Spennato; Carmine Mottolese; Salvatore Chibbaro; Delia Cannizzaro; Roberto Faggin; Paolo Frassanito; Rodolfo Maduri; Mahmoud Messerer; Franco Servadei
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-03-23

8.  Current Concepts in Cranial Reconstruction: Review of Alloplastic Materials.

Authors:  Darin T Johnston; Steven J Lohmeier; Hannah C Langdell; Bryan J Pyfer; Jordan Komisarow; David B Powers; Detlev Erdmann
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-08-19

9.  Outcome and risk factors of complications after cranioplasty with polyetheretherketone and titanium mesh: A single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Shun Yao; Qiyu Zhang; Yiying Mai; Hongyi Yang; Yilin Li; Minglin Zhang; Run Zhang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 4.086

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.