Literature DB >> 34100535

Complications of Cranioplasty in Relation to Material: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

Jack Henry1,2, Michael Amoo1,3, Joseph Taylor2, David P O'Brien1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cranioplasty is a ubiquitous neurosurgical procedure consisting of reconstruction of a pre-existing calvarial defect. Many materials are available, including polymethylmethacrylate in hand-moulded (hPMMA) and prefabricated (pPMMA) form, hydroxyapatite (HA), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium (Ti).
OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relationship between materials and complications of cranioplasty.
METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1990 to February 14, 2021. Studies detailing rates of any of infections, implant exposure, or revision surgery were included. A frequentist NMA was performed for each complication. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each material pair.
RESULTS: A total of 3620 abstracts were screened and 31 full papers were included. Surgical revision was reported in 18 studies and occurred in 316/2032 cases (14%; 95% CI 11-17). PEEK had the lowest risk of re-operation with a rate of 8/157 (5%; 95% CI 0-11) in 5 studies, superior to autografts (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.07-0.57), hPMMA (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.07-0.60), Ti (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.92), and pPMMA (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.04-0.51). Revision rate was 131/684 (19%; 95% CI 13-25; 10 studies) in autografts, 61/317 (18%; 95%CI 9-28; 7 studies) in hPMMA, 84/599 (13%; 95% CI 7-19; 11 studies) in Ti, 7/59 (9%; 95% CI 1-23; 3 studies) in pPMMA, and 25/216 (12%; 95% CI 4-24; 4 studies) in HA. Infection occurred in 463/4667 (8%; 95% CI 6-11) and implant exposure in 120/1651 (6%; 95% CI 4-9).
CONCLUSION: PEEK appears to have the lowest risk of cranioplasty revision, but further research is required to determine the optimal material. © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cranial reconstruction; Cranioplasty; Decompressive craniectomy; Traumatic brain injury

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34100535     DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyab180

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   5.315


  5 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

2.  Analysis of PMMA versus CaP titanium-enhanced implants for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: a retrospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Dominik Wesp; Harald Krenzlin; Dragan Jankovic; Malte Ottenhausen; Max Jägersberg; Florian Ringel; Naureen Keric
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 2.800

3.  Removing Craniofacial Titanium Screws: Technical Note.

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

4.  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

5.  Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Paolo Capparé; Francesco Ferrini; Corrado Ruscica; Giuseppe Pantaleo; Giulia Tetè; Enrico Felice Gherlone
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.