• Jaakko M Piitulainen, Tommi Kauko, Kalle M J Aitasalo, Ville Vuorinen, Pekka K Vallittu, and Jussi P Posti.
• Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Surgery and Cancer Diseases, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland; Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Electronic address: jaakko.piitulainen@utu.fi.
• World Neurosurg. 2015 May 1; 83 (5): 708-14.

ObjectiveUsing current surgical methods, cranioplasty is associated with a high complication rate. We analyzed if there are preexisting medical conditions associated with complications and compared the effect of different implant materials on the degree of complications.MethodsA retrospective review of the medical records of all patients who underwent cranioplasty for cranial bone defects during the period 2002-2012 was conducted, and 100 consecutive cranioplasty procedures that met eligibility criteria were identified. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups, which were created based on the cranioplasty material: autograft (n = 20), bioactive fiber-reinforced composite (n = 20), hydroxyapatite (n = 31), and other synthetic materials (n = 29). Survival estimates were constructed with Kaplan-Meier curves, and the differences between categorical variable levels were determined using a log-rank test. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using a Šidák correction.ResultsDuring a median follow-up time of 14 months (interquartile range 3-39 months), 32 of 100 patients (32.0%) developed at least 1 complication. A minor complication occurred in 13 patients (13.0%), whereas 19 patients (19.0%) developed a major complication, which required reoperation or removal of the implant. In the autograft subgroup, 40.0% of patients required removal of the cranioplasty. The 3-year survival of the autograft subgroup was lower compared with other subgroups of synthetic materials. In hydroxyapatite and bioactive fiber-reinforced composite groups, fewer complications were observed compared with the autograft group.ConclusionsBased on these results, synthetic materials for cranial bone defect reconstruction exhibit more promising outcomes compared with autograft. There were differences in survival rates among synthetic materials.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

43 keywords...

hide…