Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cranioplasty Using Autologous Bone versus Porous Polyethylene versus Custom-Made Titanium Mesh : A Retrospective Review of 108 Patients

  • Kim, Jun-Ki (Department of Neurosurgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Bok (Department of Neurosurgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Yang, Seo-Yeon (Department of Neurosurgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2018.03.05
  • Accepted : 2018.07.28
  • Published : 2018.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to compare the cosmetic outcome and complications after cranioplasty (CP) due to three different implant materials, and analyze the mean implant survival and cumulative survival rate based on these results. Methods : We reviewed 108 patients retrospectively who underwent CP between January 2014 and November 2016. Autologous bone (AB; 45 patients) and synthetic materials with porous polyethylene (PP; 32 patients) and custom-made 3-dimensional printed titanium mesh (CT; 31 patients) were used as implants. Results : Regardless of implanted materials, more than 89.8% of the CP patients were satisfied with the cosmetic outcome. No statistically significant difference was observed among the three groups. The overall postoperative complication rates of each group were 31.1% in the AB group, 15.6% in the PP group and 3.2% in the CT group. The CT group showed lower complication rates compared with AB and PP groups (${\chi}^2$-test : AB vs. PP, p=0.34; AB vs. CT, p=0.00; PP vs. CT, p=0.03). The AB and PP groups demonstrated a higher post-CP infection rate (11.1% and 6.3%) than the CT group (3.2%). However, no significant difference in the incidence of post-CP infection was observed among the three groups. The PP and CT groups demonstrated a higher mean implant survival time and cumulative survival rate than the AB group at the last follow-up (p<0.05). Conclusion : In comparison with AB and PP, cranioplasty with CT shows benefits in terms of lower post-CP complication, less intraoperative bleeding loss, shorter operation time and in-hospital stay. The PP and CT groups showed higher implant survival time and cumulative survival rate compared with the AB group.

Keywords

References

  1. Agrawal D, Hussain N : Decompressive craniectomy in cerebral toxoplasmosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24 : 772-773, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-005-0017-7
  2. Archavlis E, Carvi Y Nievas M : The impact of timing of cranioplasty in patients with large cranial defects after decompressive hemicraniectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154 : 1055-1062, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1333-1
  3. Beauchamp KM, Kashuk J, Moore EE, Bolles G, Rabb C, Seinfeld J, et al. : Cranioplasty after postinjury decompressive craniectomy: is timing of the essence? J Trauma 69 : 270-274, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e491c2
  4. Bruce JN, Bruce SS : Preservation of bone flaps in patients with postcraniotomy infections. J Neurosurg 98 : 1203-1207, 2003 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2003.98.6.1203
  5. Cabraja M, Klein M, Lehmann TN : Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects. Neurosurg Focus 26 : E10, 2009
  6. Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D : Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 112 : 1120-1124, 2010 https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.6.JNS09133
  7. Cronquist AB, Jakob K, Lai L, Della Latta P, Larson EL : Relationship between skin microbial counts and surgical site infection after neurosurgery. Clin Infect Dis 33 : 1302-1308, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1086/322661
  8. Dujovny M, Aviles A, Agner C, Fernandez P, Charbel FT : Cranioplasty: cosmetic or therapeutic? Surg Neurol 47 : 238-241, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-3019(96)00013-4
  9. Dunisch P, Walter J, Sakr Y, Kalff R, Waschke A, Ewald C : Risk factors of aseptic bone resorption: a study after autologous bone flap reinsertion due to decompressive craniotomy. J Neurosurg 118 : 1141-1147, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.1.JNS12860
  10. Ferro JM, Crassard I, Coutinho JM, Canhao P, Barinagarrementeria F, Cucchiara B, et al. : Decompressive surgery in cerebrovenous thrombosis: a multicenter registry and a systematic review of individual patient data. Stroke 42 : 2825-2831, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.615393
  11. Fisher CM, Ojemann RG : Bilateral decompressive craniectomy for worsening coma in acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. Observations in support of the procedure. Surg Neurol 41 : 65-74, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-3019(94)90210-0
  12. Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW : Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 26 : E9, 2009
  13. Grant GA, Jolley M, Ellenbogen RG, Roberts TS, Gruss JR, Loeser JD : Failure of autologous bone-assisted cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in children and adolescents. J Neurosurg 100 (2 Suppl Pediatrics) : 163-168, 2004 https://doi.org/10.3171/ped.2004.100.2.0163
  14. Honeybul S : Complications of decompressive craniectomy for head injury. J Clin Neurosci 17 : 430-435, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2009.09.007
  15. Honeybul S, Ho KM : How "successful" is calvarial reconstruction using frozen autologous bone? Plast Reconstr Surg 130 : 1110-1117, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318267d4de
  16. Honeybul S, Ho KM : Long-term complications of decompressive craniectomy for head injury. J Neurotrauma 28 : 929-935, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2010.1612
  17. Honeybul S, Ho KM : The current role of decompressive craniectomy in the management of neurological emergencies. Brain Inj 27 : 979-991, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.794974
  18. Kim BJ, Hong KS, Park KJ, Park DH, Chung YG, Kang SH : Customized cranioplasty implants using three-dimensional printers and polymethylmethacrylate casting. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52 : 541-546, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2012.52.6.541
  19. Lee SC, Wu CT, Lee ST, Chen PJ : Cranioplasty using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. J Clin Neurosci 16 : 56-63, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2008.04.001
  20. Malis LI : Titanium mesh and acrylic cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 25 : 351-355, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198909000-00005
  21. Marbacher S, Andres RH, Fathi AR, Fandino J : Primary reconstruction of open depressed skull fractures with titanium mesh. J Craniofac Surg 19 : 490-495, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181534ae8
  22. Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, Takanashi S, Miyawaki S, Nakashima M, et al. : Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148 : 535-540; discussion 540, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-006-0740-6
  23. Piedra MP, Nemecek AN, Ragel BT : Timing of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for trauma. Surg Neurol Int 5 : 25, 2014 https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.127762
  24. Polin RS, Shaffrey ME, Bogaev CA, Tisdale N, Germanson T, Bocchicchio B, et al. : Decompressive bifrontal craniectomy in the treatment of severe refractory posttraumatic cerebral edema. Neurosurgery 41 : 84-92; discussion 92-94, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199707000-00018
  25. Reddy S, Khalifian S, Flores JM, Bellamy J, Manson PN, Rodriguez ED, et al. : Clinical outcomes in cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg 133 : 864-873, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000013
  26. Riordan MA, Simpson VM, Hall WA : Analysis of factors contributing to infections after cranioplasty: a single-institution retrospective chart review. World Neurosurg 87 : 207-213, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.11.070
  27. Schuss P, Vatter H, Oszvald A, Marquardt G, Imohl L, Seifert V, et al. : Bone flap resorption: risk factors for the development of a long-term complication following cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. J Neurotrauma 30 : 91-95, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2012.2542
  28. Schwab S, Steiner T, Aschoff A, Schwarz S, Steiner HH, Jansen O, et al. : Early hemicraniectomy in patients with complete middle cerebral artery infarction. Stroke 29 : 1888-1893, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.29.9.1888
  29. Segal DH, Oppenheim JS, Murovic JA : Neurological recovery after cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 34 : 729-731; discussion 731, 1994
  30. Sundseth J, Sundseth A, Berg-Johnsen J, Sorteberg W, Lindegaard KF : Cranioplasty with autologous cryopreserved bone after decompressive craniectomy: complications and risk factors for developing surgical site infection. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156 : 805-811; discussion 811, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-013-1992-6
  31. Thavarajah D, De Lacy P, Hussien A, Sugar A : The minimum time for cranioplasty insertion from craniectomy is six months to reduce risk of infection--a case series of 82 patients. Br J Neurosurg 26 : 78-80, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2011.603850
  32. Wiggins A, Austerberry R, Morrison D, Ho KM, Honeybul S : Cranioplasty with custom-made titanium plates--14 years experience. Neurosurgery 72 : 248-256; discussion 256, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827b98f3
  33. Wind JJ, Ohaegbulam C, Iwamoto FM, Black PM, Park JK : Immediate titanium mesh cranioplasty for treatment of postcraniotomy infections. World Neurosurg 79 : 207.e11-e13, 2013
  34. Yadla S, Campbell PG, Chitale R, Maltenfort MG, Jabbour P, Sharan AD : Effect of early surgery, material, and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 68 : 1124-1129; discussion 1130, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820a5470

Cited by

  1. Evaluation and Prediction of Mass Transport Properties for Porous Implant with Different Unit Cells: A Numerical Study vol.2019, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3610785
  2. Nanoparticles and Nanostructured Surface Fabrication for Innovative Cranial and Maxillofacial Surgery vol.13, pp.23, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235391
  3. Letter to the Editor: Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.87, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2021.02.013