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

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. We reviewed 108 patients retrospectively who underwent CP betwe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2018, 61(6), , pp.737-746
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Jun-Ki, Lee, Sang-Bok, Yang, Seo-Yeon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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. 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. 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 (χ2-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
ISSN:2005-3711
1598-7876
DOI:10.3340/jkns.2018.0047