Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;44(9):1266-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.005. Epub 2016 Jul 9.

Outcome in patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: A two-center cohort study of 40 implants.

Author information

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.e.vandevijfeijken@amc.uva.nl.
3
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
4
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
5
iMinds-Vision Lab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
6
Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
7
Department of Neurosurgery Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
8
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The best material choice for cranioplasty following craniectomy remains a subject to discussion. Complication rates after cranioplasty tend to be high. Computer-assisted 3-dimensional modelling of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was recently introduced for cranial reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient- and surgery-related characteristics and risk factors that predispose patients to cranioplasty complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

This retrospective study included a total of 40 cranial PEEK implants in 38 patients, performed at two reference centers in the Netherlands from 2011 to 2014. Complications were registered and patient- and surgery-related data were carefully analysed.

RESULTS:

The overall complication rate of PEEK cranioplasty was 28%. Complications included infection (13 %), postoperative haematoma (10 %), cerebrospinal fluid leak (2.5 %) and wound-related problems (2.5 %). All postoperative infections required removal of the implant. Nonetheless removed implants could be successfully re-used after re-sterilization.

CONCLUSION:

Although overall complication rates after PEEK cranioplasty remain high, outcomes are satisfactory, as our results compare favourably to recent literature reports on cranial vault reconstruction.

KEYWORDS:

Computer aided-design and modelling; Cranial vault reconstruction; Craniectomy; Cranioplasty; PEEK; Patient specific implant

PMID:
27524384
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.005
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center