Alloplastic Cranioplasty Reconstruction: A Systematic Review Comparing Outcomes With Titanium Mesh, Polymethyl Methacrylate, Polyether Ether Ketone, and Norian Implants in 3591 Adult Patients. (May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Oliver, Jeremie D.; Banuelos, Joseph; Abu-Ghname, Amjed; Vyas, Krishna S.; Sharaf, Basel
• Is Part Of: Annals of plastic surgery. Volume 82(2019)Supplement 4 5S
• Publication Date: 2019-05
• Subjects: alloplastic cranioplasty -- Norian -- polyether ether ketone -- polymethyl methacrylate -- titanium mesh; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001801
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-7043

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Acquired defects of the cranium represent a reconstructive challenge in patients with calvarial bone loss due to trauma, infection, neoplasia, congenital malformations, or other etiologies. The objective of this study was to compare postoperative rates of infection, local complications, and allograft failures following cranioplasty reconstruction using titanium mesh (Ti), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and Norian implants in adult patients. Methods: This constitutes the first systematic review of available literature on 4 different methods of alloplastic cranioplasty reconstruction, including Ti, PMMA, PEEK, and Norian implants, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search included Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database. Pearson exact test was utilized at P < 0.05 level of significance (J.M.P. v11 Statistical Software). Results: A total of 53 studies and 3591 patients (mean age, 40.1 years) were included (Ti = 1429, PMMA = 1459, PEEK = 221, Norian = 482). Polymethyl methacrylate implants were associated with a significantly higher infection rate (7.95%, P = 0.0266) compared with all other implant types (6.05%). Polyether ether ketone implants were associated with a significantly higher local complication rate (17.19%, P = 0.0307, compared with 12.23% in all others) and the highest ultimate graft failure rate (8.60%, P = 0.0450) compared with all other implant types (5.52%). Conclusions: This study qualifies as a preliminary analysis addressing the knowledge gap in rates of infection, local surgical complication, and graft failure in alloplastic cranioplasty reconstruction with different implant types in the adult population. Longer-term randomized trials are warranted to validate associations found in this study.