Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Williams LR, Fan KF, Bentley RP. Custom-made titanium cranioplasty: early and late complications of 151 cranioplasties and review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:599–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen X, Xu L, Li X, et al. Computer-aided implant design for the restoration of cranial defects. Sci Rep 2017;7:4199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei L, Xu-yi C, Yi-peng L, et al. Research status of skull repair materials and the prospect of three-dimensional printing technology. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 2016;20:7885–90.
   Google Scholar
• Feroze AH, Walmsley GG, Choudhri O, et al. Evolution of cranioplasty techniques in neurosurgery: historical review, pediatric considerations, and current trends. J Neurosurg 2015;123:1098–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso-Rodriguez E, Cebrián JL, Nieto MJ, et al. Polyetheretherketone custom-made implants for craniofacial defects: report of 14 cases and review of the literature. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2015;43:1232–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, et al. Cranioplasty: review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2011;2:162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiggins A, Austerberry R, Morrison D, et al. Cranioplasty with custom-made titanium plates—14 years experience. Neurosurgery 2013;72:248–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eseonu CI, Goodwin CR, Zhou X, et al. Reduced CSF leak in complete calvarial reconstructions of microvascular decompression craniectomies using calcium phosphate cement. JNS 2015;123:1476–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu QS, Chen L, Qiu ZY, Zhang YQ, Song TX, Cui FZ. Skull repair materials applied in cranioplasty: history and progress. Transl Neurosci Clin 2017;3:48–57.
   Google Scholar
• Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, et al. Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases. JNS 2015;123:182–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm JG, Rindler RS, Chu JK, et al. Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2016;33:39–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauchamp KM, Kashuk J, Moore EE, et al. Cranioplasty after postinjury decompressive craniectomy: is timing of the essence?. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2010;69:270–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L, et al. Cranioplasty of large cranial defect at an early stage after decompressive craniectomy performed for severe head trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2007;18:526–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwama T, Yamada J, Imai S, et al. The use of frozen autogenous bone flaps in delayed cranioplasty revisited. Neurosurgery 2003;52:591–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiarini L, Figurelli S, Pollastri G, et al. Cranioplasty using acrylic material: a new technical procedure. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2004;32:5–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce JN, Bruce SS. Preservation of bone flaps in patients with postcraniotomy infections. J Neurosurg 2003;98:1203–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joffe JM, McDermott PJ, Linney AD, Mosse CA, Harris M. Computer-generated titanium cranioplasty: report of a new technique for repairing skull defects. Br J Neurosurg 1992;6:343–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao CC, Kao MC. Cranioplasty for patients with severe depressed skull bone defect after cerebrospinal fluid shunting. J Clin Neurosci 2002;9:553–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, et al. Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006;148:535–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003;327:557–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Im SH, Jang DK, Han YM, et al. Long-term incidence and predicting factors of cranioplasty infection after decompressive craniectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012;52:396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobinski L, Koskinen LOD, Lindvall P. Complications following cranioplasty using autologous bone or polymethylmethacrylate—retrospective experience from a single center. J Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:1788–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paredes I, Munarriz PM, Cepeda S, et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. A prospective series analyzing complications and clinical improvement. Neurocirugía 2015;26:115–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thien A, King NKK, Ang BT, et al. Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg 2015;83:176–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lethaus B, Bloebaum M, Essers B, et al. Patient-specific implants compared with stored bone grafts for patients with interval cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:206–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng ZY, Ang WJ, Nawaz I. Computer-designed polyetheretherketone implants versus titanium mesh (acrylic cement) in alloplastic cranioplasty: a retrospective single-surgeon, single-center study. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:e185–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaccarino C, Viaroli E, Fricia M, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective study on methods of cranial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73:2375–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piitulainen JM, Kauko T, Aitasalo KMJ, et al. Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. World Neurosurg 2015;83:708–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilardino MS, Karunanayake M, Al-Humsi T, et al. A comparison and cost analysis of cranioplasty techniques: autologous bone versus custom computer-generated implants. J Craniofac Surg 2015;26:113–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster KA, Shin SS, Prabhu B, et al. Calcium phosphate cement cranioplasty decreases the rate of CSF leak and wound infection compared to titanium mesh cranioplasty: retrospective study of 672 patients. World Neurosurg 2016;95:414–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz F, Dünisch P, Walter J, et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: is there a rationale for an initial artificial bone-substitute implant? A single-center experience after 631 procedures. JNS 2016;124:710–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zegers T, Ter LM, Koper D, et al. The therapeutic effect of patient-specific implants in cranioplasty. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg 2017;45:82–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty. JNS 2017;126:81–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Li X, et al. A large multi-center retrospective research on embedded cranioplasty and covered cranioplasty. World Neurosurg 2018;112:e645–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moles A, Heudes PM, Amelot A, et al. Long-term follow-up comparative study of hydroxyapatite and autologous cranioplasties: complications, cosmetic results, osseointegration. World Neurosurg 2018;111:e395–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner D, Schlothofer-Schumann K, Kern BC, et al. Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial. JNS 2017;126:175–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoon KS, Soo KD, Hwan CJ, et al. Comparison of complications following cranioplasty using a sterilized autologous bone flap or polymethyl methacrylate. Korean J Neurotrauma 2017;13:15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hassan H, Ali A, Abdalla A. Autogenous bone graft versus artificial substitutes in cranioplasty. OJMN 2019;09:338–55.
   Google Scholar
• Vince GH, Kraschl J, Rauter H, et al. Comparison between autologous bone grafts and acrylic (PMMA) implants – a retrospective analysis of 286 cranioplasty procedures. J Clin Neurosci 2019;61:205–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Kim JH, Kim JH, et al. Outcomes of cranioplasty using autologous bone or 3D-customized titanium mesh following decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: differences in complications. J Trauma Injury 2019;32:202–9.
   Google Scholar
• Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, et al. Predictors of infections following cranioplasty: a retrospective review of a large single center study. Sci World J 2014;2014:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Schuss P, Vatter H, Marquardt G, et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: the effect of timing on postoperative complications. J Neurotrauma 2012;29:1090–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant GA, Jolley M, Ellenbogen RG, et al. Failure of autologous bone-assisted cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in children and adolescents. J Neurosurg 2004;100:163–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Vijfeijken Sophie ECM, Münker Tijmen JAG, Rene S, et al. Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties: safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2018;117:443–52. S1878875018311471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mrad MA, Murrad K, Antonyshyn O. Analyzing the cost of autogenous cranioplasty versus custom-made patient-specific alloplastic cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:1260–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocque BG, Amancherla K, Lew SM, et al. Outcomes of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in the pediatric population. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2013;12:120–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corliss B, Gooldy T, Vaziri S, et al. Complications following in-vivo and ex-vivo autologous bone flap storage for cranioplasty: a comparative analysis of the literature. World Neurosurg 2016;96:510–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoekler B, Trummer M. Prediction parameters of bone flap resorption following cranioplasty with autologous bone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;120:64–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser M, Schmid R, Schindel R, et al. Patient-specific polymethylmethacrylate prostheses for secondary reconstruction of large calvarial defects: a retrospective feasibility study of a new intraoperative moulding device for cranioplasty. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2016;45:295–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaberi J, Gambrell K, Tiwana P, et al. Long-term clinical outcome analysis of poly-methyl-methacrylate cranioplasty for large skull defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:e81–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotaru H, Stan H, Florian IS, et al. Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: analyzing the cases of 10 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:e169–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SC, Wu CT, Lee ST, Chen PJ. Cranioplasty using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. J Clin Neurosci 2009;16:56–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afifi AM, Gordon CR, Pryor LS, et al. Calcium phosphate cements in skull reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadat-Shojai M, Khorasani MT, Dinpanah-Khoshdargi E, et al. Synthesis methods for nanosized hydroxyapatite with diverse structures. Acta Biomater 2013;9:7591–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefini R, Zanotti B, Nataloni A, et al. The efficacy of custom-made porous hydroxyapatite prostheses for cranioplasty: evaluation of postmarketing data on 2697 patients. JABFM 2015;13:0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefini R, Esposito G, Zanotti B, et al. Use of "custom made" porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zanotti B, Verlicchi A, Indiani S, Scarparo SA, Zingaretti N, Parodi PC. Spontaneous fractures in custom-made porous hydroxyapatite cranioplasty implants: is fragility the only culprit? Acta Neurochir 2015;157:517–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratnayake JTB, Mucalo M, Dias GJ. Substituted hydroxyapatites for bone regeneration: a review of current trends. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 2017;105:1285–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen T, Zhang Y, Zuo H, et al. Repairing skull defects in children with nano-hap/collagen composites: a clinical report of thirteen cases. Transl Neurosci Clin 2016;2:31–7.
   Google Scholar
• Jonkergouw J, van de Vijfeijken SECM, Nout E, et al. Outcome in patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: a two-center cohort study of 40 implants. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2016;44:1266–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal G, Ng I, Moscovici S, et al. Polyetheretherketone implants for the repair of large cranial defects: a 3-center experience. Neurosurgery 2014;75:523–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rammos CK, Cayci C, Castro-Garcia JA, et al. Patient-specific polyetheretherketone implants for repair of craniofacial defects. Int J Surg 2015;26:631–3.
   Google Scholar
• Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, et al. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2017;41:30–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Vijfeijken S, Schreurs R, Dubois L, et al. The use of cranial resection templates with 3D virtual planning and PEEK patient-specific implants: a 3 year follow-up. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:542–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill SC, Luoma AM, Wilson SR, et al. Titanium cranioplasty and the prediction of complications. Br J Neurosurg 2012;26:832–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens FL, Mossop CM, Bell RS, et al. Cranioplasty complications following wartime decompressive craniectomy. FOC 2010;28:E3.
   Google Scholar
• Williams L, Fan K, Bentley R. Titanium cranioplasty in children and adolescents. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:789–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee S, Thakur B, Haq I, et al. Complications of titanium cranioplasty–a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Acta Neurochir 2014;156:989–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo J, Morrison DA, Hayes AJ, et al. Single-piece titanium plate cranioplasty reconstruction of complex defects. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:839–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar