Literature DB >> 34670972

Outcomes of Cranioplasty Strategies for High-Risk Complex Cranial Defects: A 10-Year Experience.

Edgar Soto1, Ryan D Restrepo2, John H Grant3, René P Myers3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although the literature contains reports of the risks and complications of calvarial vault reconstruction for acquired defects, there are few publications addressing the specific patient population who require such reconstructions in cases preceded by prior infection, radiation, massive associated soft tissue trauma, and so on. We define such clinical presentations as a hostile environment for large surface area reconstruction. Our objective is to compare the safety and efficacy of autologous bone and alloplastic reconstruction in hostile cranial defects.
METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent cranioplasty of a hostile site at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between January 2008 and December 2018 was performed. The patients were stratified into 3 groups based on the type of implant used: autogenous (bone), alloplastic (polyetheretherketone [PEEK], titanium, polymethyl methacrylate), or mixed (combination of bone and prosthetic). The primary outcome metric was a complication in the year after cranioplasty, identified by implant failure, necrosis, or infection. Statistical analysis included t tests and χ2 tests where appropriate using SPSS.
RESULTS: There were 55 total cases in this period: 27 autogenous, 23 alloplastic, and 5 mixed. The purely autogenous group had the highest complication rate (44%), and the alloplastic group had the lowest complication rate (38%), which was not statistically different between the 3 groups (P = 0.121). When stratified by specific material used for reconstruction (27 bone, 14 PEEK, 10 titanium, and 5 polymethyl methacrylate), overall complication rate was statistically significant (P = 0.009, χ2 test), with PEEK implants having the lowest complication rate (21%).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis interestingly found that in the setting of hostile cranial defects, cranioplasties would benefit from the use of prosthetic implants instead of autologous bone grafts, not only for avoidance of donor site morbidity but also for a decrease in overall complications.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34670972      PMCID: PMC8986876          DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.763


  26 in total

1.  Scalp and calvarial reconstruction.

Authors:  Samuel J Lin; Matthew M Hanasono; Roman J Skoracki
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 2.  Cranioplasty: Review of Materials.

Authors:  Bruno Zanotti; Nicola Zingaretti; Angela Verlicchi; Massimo Robiony; Alex Alfieri; Pier Camillo Parodi
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.046

3.  Reconstructive approach to hostile cranioplasty: A review of the University of Chicago experience.

Authors:  Abigail J Fong; Benjamin T Lemelman; Sandi Lam; Grant M Kleiber; Russell R Reid; Lawrence J Gottlieb
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 4.  Reconstruction of the scalp, calvarium, and frontal sinus.

Authors:  Somsak Sittitavornwong; Anthony B P Morlandt
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

5.  Intraosseous meningioma: a rare tumor reconstructed with porous polyethylene.

Authors:  Baris Kucukyuruk; Huseyin Biceroglu; Bashar Abuzayed; Mustafa Onur Ulu; Galip Zihni Sanus
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Cranioplasty with patient-specific implants in repeatedly reconstructed cases.

Authors:  David Koper; Mariel Ter Laak-Poort; Bernd Lethaus; Kensuke Yamauchi; Lorenzo Moroni; Pamela Habibovic; Peter Kessler
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 7.  Clinical, radiological, and microbiological profile of patients with autogenous cranioplasty infections.

Authors:  Ivan P Bhaskar; Timothy J J Inglis; Gabriel Y F Lee
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 2.104

Review 8.  Scalp reconstruction: an algorithmic approach and systematic review.

Authors:  Shaun C Desai; Jordan P Sand; Jeffrey D Sharon; Gregory Branham; Brian Nussenbaum
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.611

9.  Microsurgical reconstruction of composite scalp and calvarial defects in patients with cancer: a 10-year experience.

Authors:  Albert H Chao; Peirong Yu; Roman J Skoracki; Franco Demonte; Matthew M Hanasono
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 3.147

10.  Polymethylmethacrylate patient-matched implants (PMMA-PMI) for complex and revision cranioplasty: analysis of long-term complication rates and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Henrik Giese; Jennifer Meyer; Michael Engel; Andreas Unterberg; Christopher Beynon
Journal:  Brain Inj       Date:  2019-10-27       Impact factor: 2.311

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.