Literature DB >> 32233810

Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liming Liu1, Shou-Tao Lu2, Ai-Hua Liu3,4, Wen-Bo Hou1, Wen-Rui Cao1, Chao Zhou1, Yu-Xia Yin1, Kun-Shan Yuan1, Han-Jie Liu3,5, Ming-Guang Zhang6, Hai-Jun Zhang1,2,7.   

Abstract

Objective: Meta-analysis to evaluate complications in the use of autogenous bone and bone substitutes and to compare bone substitutes, specifically HA, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium materials.
Methods: Search of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Google scholar to identify all citations from 2010 to 2019 reporting complications regarding materials used in cranioplasty.
Results: 20 of 2266 articles met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 2913 patients. The odds of overall complication were significantly higher in the autogenous bone group (n = 214/644 procedures, 33.2%) than the bone substitute groups (n = 116/436 procedures, 26.7%, CI 1.29-2.35, p < 0.05). In bone substitutes groups, there was no significant difference in overall complication rate between HA and Ti (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.47-3.14, p = 0.69). PEEK has lower overall complication rates (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87, p = 0.01) and lower implant exposure rates (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.53, p = 0.002) than Ti, but there was no significant difference in infection rates and postoperative hematoma rates.Conclusions: Cranioplasty is associated with high overall complication rates with the use of autologous bone grafts compared with bone substitutes. PEEK has a relatively low overall complication rates in substitutes groups, but still high infection rates and postoperative hematoma rates. Thus, autologous bone grafts should only be used selectively, and prospective long-term studies are needed to further refine a better material in cranioplasty.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autologous bone grafts; PEEK; calcium phosphate cements; complication; cranioplasty; titanium

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32233810     DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2020.1742291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0268-8697            Impact factor:   1.596


  9 in total

Review 1.  Complications and cosmetic outcomes of materials used in cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-a systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jakob V E Gerstl; Luis F Rendon; Shane M Burke; Joanne Doucette; Rania A Mekary; Timothy R Smith
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 2.  Cranioplasty: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

Authors:  H Mee; F Anwar; I Timofeev; N Owens; K Grieve; G Whiting; K Alexander; K Kendrick; A Helmy; P Hutchinson; A Kolias
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-05-17

Review 3.  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

4.  A Perioperative Paradigm of Cranioplasty With Polyetheretherketone: Comprehensive Management for Preventing Postoperative Complications.

Authors:  Zhenghui He; Yuxiao Ma; Chun Yang; Jiyuan Hui; Qing Mao; Guoyi Gao; Jiyao Jiang; Junfeng Feng
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-03-21

5.  Removing Craniofacial Titanium Screws: Technical Note.

Authors:  Jaims Lim; Amade Bregy; Kevin Gibbons
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-11-25

6.  Subgaleal Effusion and Brain Midline Shift After Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Study Between Polyetheretherketone Cranioplasty and Titanium Cranioplasty After Decompressive Craniectomy.

Authors:  Tao Ji; Peiwen Yao; Yu Zeng; Zhouqi Qian; Ke Wang; Liang Gao
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-07-21

7.  Clinical Applications of Poly-Methyl-Methacrylate in Neurosurgery: The In Vivo Cranial Bone Reconstruction.

Authors:  Tomaz Velnar; Roman Bosnjak; Lidija Gradisnik
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2022-09-19

8.  The Influence of Hyaluronic Acid Biofunctionalization of a Bovine Bone Substitute on Osteoblast Activity In Vitro.

Authors:  Solomiya Kyyak; Andreas Pabst; Diana Heimes; Peer W Kämmerer
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.623

Review 9.  A Narrative Review of Cell-Based Approaches for Cranial Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Maria I Falguera Uceda; Silvia Sánchez-Casanova; Clara Escudero-Duch; Nuria Vilaboa
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 6.321

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.