Cranioplasty with hydroxyapatite or acrylic is associated with a reduced risk of all-cause and infection-associated explantation

References

• Kolias AG, Kirkpatrick PJ, Hutchinson PJ. Decompressive craniectomy: past, present and future. Nat Rev Neurol 2013;9:405–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu L, Lu ST, Liu AH, et al. Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 2020:34 (4): 388–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkhaibary A, Alharbi A, Alnefaie N, Oqalaa Almubarak A, Aloraidi A, Khairy S. Cranioplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the History, Materials, Surgical Aspects, and Complications. World Neurosurg 2020;139:445–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de vijfeijken S, Münker T, Spijker R, 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.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm JG, Rindler RS, Chu JK, Grossberg JA, Pradilla G, Ahmad FU. 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
• Xu H, Niu C, Fu X, et al. Early cranioplasty vs. late cranioplasty for the treatment of cranial defect: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015;136:33–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alperin N, Vikingstad EM, Gomez-Anson B, Levin DN. Hemodynamically independent analysis of cerebrospinal fluid and brain motion observed with dynamic phase contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1996;35:741–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satapathy D, Nadeem M, Shukla DP, Prabhuraj AR, Devi BI. Cosmetic outcome of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy-an overlooked aspect. World Neurosurg 2019;129:e81–e86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henry J, Amoo M, Taylor J, O’brien DP. Complications of cranioplasty in relation to material: systematic review, network meta-analysis and meta-regression. Neurosurgery 2021;89 (3): 383–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, Lind CRP, Geelhoed E. A randomised controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty: long-term follow-up. Acta Neurochir 2018;160:885–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner D, Schlothofer-Schumann K, Kern BC, Marx O, Müns A, Meixensberger J. Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial. JNS 2017;126:175–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm JG, Mahmooth Z, Rindler RS, et al. Autologous cranioplasty is associated with increased reoperation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2018;116:60–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morselli C, Zaed I, Tropeano MP, et al. Comparison between the different types of heterologous materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Sci 2019;63:723–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. FOC 2014;36:E19.
   Google Scholar
• Stefini R, Esposito G, Zanotti B, Iaccarino C, Fontanella MM, Servadei F. Use of “custom made” porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terrapon APR, Zattra CM, Voglis S, et al. Adverse events in neurosurgery: the novel therapy-disability-neurology grade. Neurosurgery 2021;89:236–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feroze AH, Walmsley GG, Choudhri O, Lorenz HP, Grant GA, Edwards MS. 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
• Ganau M, Cebula H, Fricia M, et al. Surgical preference regarding different materials for custom-made allograft cranioplasty in patients with calvarial defects: results from an internal audit covering the last 20 years. J Clin Neurosci 2020;74:98–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeap MC, Tu PH, Liu ZH, et al. Long-term complications of cranioplasty using stored autologous bone graft, three-dimensional polymethyl methacrylate, or titanium mesh after decompressive craniectomy: a single-center experience after 596 procedures. World Neurosurg 2019;128:e841–e850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrov PB, Mehta AI. Commentary: complications of cranioplasty in relation to material: systematic review, network meta-analysis and meta-regression. Neurosurgery 2021;89:E144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Hu Y, Yuan Q, et al.; Association between metal hypersensitivity and implant failure in patients who underwent titanium cranioplasty. J Neurosurg JNS 2019;131:40–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwiecien GJ, Sinclair N, Coombs DM, Djohan RS, Mihal D, Zins JE. Long-term effect of cranioplasty on overlying scalp atrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e3031.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosinski CL, Patel S, Geever B, et al. A retrospective comparative analysis of titanium mesh and custom implants for cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 2020;86:E15–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chistolini P, Ruspantini I, Bianco P, Corsi A, Cancedda R, Quarto R. Biomechanical evaluation of cell-loaded and cell-free hydroxyapatite implants for the reconstruction of segmental bone defects. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999;10:739–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ono H, Sase T, Tanaka Y, Takasuna H. Histological assessment of porous custom-made hydroxyapatite implants 6 months and 2.5 years after cranioplasty. Surg Neurol Int 2017;8:8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fountain DM, Henry J, Honeyman S, et al. First report of a multicenter prospective registry of cranioplasty in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Neurosurgery 2021;89:518–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjornson A, Tajsic T, Kolias AG, et al. A case series of early and late cranioplasty-comparison of surgical outcomes. Acta Neurochir 2019;161:467–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaccarino C, Kolias A, Adelson PD, et al. Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on post-traumatic cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir 2021;163:423–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez Vecchio T, Corell A, Buvarp D, Rydén I, Smits A, Jakola AS. Classification of adverse events following surgery in patients with diffuse lower-grade gliomas. Front Oncol 2021;11.
   Web of Science ®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
• Waziri A, Fusco D, Mayer SA, Mckhann GM II, Connolly ES Jr. Postoperative hydrocephalus in patients undergoing decompressive hemicraniectomy for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Neurosurgery 2007;61:489–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar