A Prospective Comparative Study of Different Methods of Cranioplasty: Our Institutional Experience

Abstract

Introduction Cranioplasty is the surgical repair, reconstruction, and replacement of a removed part of the cranium, thus restoring its shape, symmetry, contour, and continuity, which is extremely important from a cosmetic as well as a psychosocial point of view. Continuing advances in cranioplasty techniques have enabled the repair of large and increasingly complicated calvarial defects; however, the optimal reconstructive material for different clinical scenarios still remains unclear and debatable.

Aim The aim of this study was to compare risk factors, complications, and the need for reoperation associated with different methods of cranioplasty, which are implemented in our institute.

Materials and Methods This study was a prospective study conducted between August 2016 and January 2019 in a tertiary institute. Sixty patients were studied and divided into three groups of which group 1 included 18 patients who underwent cranioplasty using ETO (ethylene oxidation)-sterilized autologous bone graft, group 2 included 17 patients who underwent cranioplasty using autologous bone graft placed in subcutaneous pocket, and group 3 included 25 patients who underwent titanium mesh cranioplasty. Data were collected and statistical analysis was performed.

Result and Conclusion Of the three groups studied, postoperative complications were more in group 1(ETO-sterilized autologous bone graft) and group 3 (titanium mesh cranioplasty) but the difference between the three groups was not statistically significant. Factors such as age, gender, initial diagnosis, interval between decompression craniectomy and cranioplasty, operative time, blood loss, method of fixation, and defect size had no statistically significant effect on postoperative outcomes.

Keywords

autologous cranioplasty - titanium mesh cranioplasty - methods of cranioplasty

Publication History

Article published online:
07 February 2020

• References

• 1 Aciduman A, Belen D. The earliest document regarding the history of cranioplasty from the Ottoman era. Surg Neurol 2007; 68 (03) 349-352
• 2 Wallace RD, Salt C, Konofaos P. Comparison of Autogenous and Alloplastic Cranioplasty Materials Following Impact Testing. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (05) 1551-1557
• 3 Mracek J, Hommerova J, Mork J, Richtr P, Priban V. Complications of cranioplasty using a bone flap sterilised by autoclaving following decompressive craniectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (03) 501-506
• 4 Bobinski L, Koskinen LO, Lindvall P. Complications following cranioplasty using autologous bone or polymethylmethacrylate–retrospective experience from a single center. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013; 115 (09) 1788-1791
• 5 Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D. Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 2010; 112 (05) 1120-1124
• 6 Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 26 (06) E9
• 7 Kim SH, Kang DS, Cheong JH, Kim JH, Song KY, Kong MH. Comparison of complications following cranioplasty using a sterilized autologous bone flap or polymethyl methacrylate. Korean J Neurotrauma 2017; 13 (01) 15-23
• 8 Basheer N, Gupta D, Mahapatra A, Gurjar H. Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury : Experience at Level - I apex trauma centre. Indian J Neurotrauma. 2010; 7 (02) 139-144
• 9 Piitulainen JM, Kauko T, Aitasalo KM, Vuorinen V, Vallittu PK, Posti JP. Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. World Neurosurg 2015; 83 (05) 708-714
• 10 Jeyaraj CP. Reconstruction of large calvarial defects using titanium mesh versus autologous split thickness calvarial bone grafts: a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the two major cranioplasty techniques. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2018; 17 (03) 308-323
• 11 Schwarz F, Dünisch P, Walter J, Sakr Y, Kalff R, Ewald C. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: is there a rationale for an initial artificial bone-substitute implant? A single-center experience after 631 procedures. J Neurosurg 2015; 124 (03) 710-7155
• 12 Martin KD, Franz B, Kirsch M. et al. Autologous bone flap cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is combined with a high complication rate in pediatric traumatic brain injury patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (04) 813-824
• 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 2004; 100 (02, Suppl Pediatrics) 163-168
• 14 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) 2014; 156 (04) 805-811, discussion 811
• 15 Kim JS, Cheong JH, Ryu JI, Kim JM, Kim CH. Bone flap resorption following cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: preliminary report. Korean J Neurotrauma 2015; 11 (01) 1-5
• 16 Lee CH, Chung YS, Lee SH, Yang HJ, Son YJ, Korea S. Analysis of the factors influencing bone graft infection after cranioplasty. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73 (01) 255-260