Send to

Choose Destination
J Craniofac Surg. 2014 Jan;25(1):206-9. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000396.

Patient-specific implants compared with stored bone grafts for patients with interval cranioplasty.

Author information

From the *Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; †Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; and Departments of ‡Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment and §Neurosurgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.


Interval cranioplasty after craniectomy carries the risk of infection and failure. There is no consensus regarding the choice of reconstruction technique. In addition to the replacement of the stored autogenous bone graft, the use of patient-specific implants (PSIs) has become popular. We conducted a retrospective study comparing 17 patients who underwent reconstruction with PSIs (titanium and polyether ether ketone) (follow-up, 43 months [range, 3-93]) with 16 control subjects who had their stored bone grafts reimplanted (follow-up, 32 months [range, 5-92]) based on success rate, complication rate, operative time, and duration of hospitalization. Complication rate and the rate of necessary reoperation were significantly lower, and the hospital stay was shorter in the PSI group. We did not find any significant differences concerning operative time. In our patient groups, interval reconstruction after craniectomy with a PSI was a safer procedure based on complication and success rates than reconstruction with stored autogenous bone grafts. In patients with interval cranioplasty who have a higher risk for complication or failure, the use of PSIs should be the treatment of choice.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center