Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. Issue 3 (March 2015)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. Issue 3 (March 2015)
- Main Title:
- Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty
- Authors:
- O'Reilly, Eamon B.
Barnett, Sam
Madden, Christopher
Welch, Babu
Mickey, Bruce
Rozen, Shai - Abstract:
- <abstract xml:lang="en" abstract-type="author" id="abs0010"> <title id="sectitle0010">Summary</title> <sec> <title id="sectitle0015">Purpose</title> <p id="abspara0010">Traditional cranioplasty methods focus on pre-operative or intraoperative hand molding. Recently, CT-guided polyether ether ketone (PEEK) plate reconstruction enables precise, time-saving reconstruction. This case series aims to show a single institution experience with use of PEEK cranioplasty as an effective, safe, precise, reusable, and time-saving cranioplasty technique in large, complex cranial defects.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0020">Methods</title> <p id="abspara0015">We performed a 6-year retrospective review of cranioplasty procedures performed at our affiliated hospitals using PEEK implants. A total of nineteen patients underwent twenty-two cranioplasty procedures. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data was collected.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0025">Results</title> <p id="abspara0020">Nineteen patients underwent twenty-two procedures. Time interval from injury to loss of primary cranioplasty averaged 57.7 months (0–336 mo); 4.0 months (<italic>n</italic> = 10, range 0–19) in cases of trauma. Time interval from primary cranioplasty loss to PEEK cranioplasty was 11.8 months for infection (<italic>n</italic> = 11, range 6–25 mo), 12.2 months for trauma (<italic>n</italic> = 5, range 2–27 mo), and 0.3 months for cosmetic or functional reconstructions<abstract xml:lang="en" abstract-type="author" id="abs0010"> <title id="sectitle0010">Summary</title> <sec> <title id="sectitle0015">Purpose</title> <p id="abspara0010">Traditional cranioplasty methods focus on pre-operative or intraoperative hand molding. Recently, CT-guided polyether ether ketone (PEEK) plate reconstruction enables precise, time-saving reconstruction. This case series aims to show a single institution experience with use of PEEK cranioplasty as an effective, safe, precise, reusable, and time-saving cranioplasty technique in large, complex cranial defects.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0020">Methods</title> <p id="abspara0015">We performed a 6-year retrospective review of cranioplasty procedures performed at our affiliated hospitals using PEEK implants. A total of nineteen patients underwent twenty-two cranioplasty procedures. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data was collected.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0025">Results</title> <p id="abspara0020">Nineteen patients underwent twenty-two procedures. Time interval from injury to loss of primary cranioplasty averaged 57.7 months (0–336 mo); 4.0 months (<italic>n</italic> = 10, range 0–19) in cases of trauma. Time interval from primary cranioplasty loss to PEEK cranioplasty was 11.8 months for infection (<italic>n</italic> = 11, range 6–25 mo), 12.2 months for trauma (<italic>n</italic> = 5, range 2–27 mo), and 0.3 months for cosmetic or functional reconstructions (<italic>n</italic> = 3, range 0–1). Similar surgical techniques were used in all patients. Drains were placed in 11/22 procedures. Varying techniques were used in skin closure, including adjacent tissue transfer (4/22) and free tissue transfer (1/22). The PEEK plate required modification in four procedures. Three patients had reoperation following PEEK plate reconstruction.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="sectitle0030">Conclusion</title> <p id="abspara0025">Cranioplasty utilizing CT-guided PEEK plate allows easy inset, anatomic accuracy, mirror image aesthetics, simplification of complex 3D defects, and potential time savings. Additionally, it's easily manipulated in the operating room, and can be easily re-utilized in cases of intraoperative course changes or infection.</p> </sec> </abstract> … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery. Volume 68:Issue 3(2015:Mar.)
- Journal:
- Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery
- Issue:
- Volume 68:Issue 3(2015:Mar.)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 68, Issue 3 (2015)
- Year:
- 2015
- Volume:
- 68
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2015-0068-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 329
- Page End:
- 338
- Publication Date:
- 2015-03
- Subjects:
- Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals
Surgery, Plastic -- Great Britain -- Periodicals
617.9505 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17486815 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.001 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1748-6815
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5040.695800
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 4377.xml