Three-dimensional personalized porous polyethylen cranioplasty in patients at increased risk of surgical site infection

. 2024 Sep 27 ; 166 (1) : 383. [epub] 20240927

Jazyk angličtina Země Rakousko Médium electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid39327320

Grantová podpora
00669806 The grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806)
00669806 The grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806)
00669806 The grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806)
00669806 The grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806)
00669806 The grant of Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Conceptual Development of Research Organization (Faculty Hospital in Pilsen - FNPl, 00669806)

Odkazy

PubMed 39327320
PubMed Central PMC11427512
DOI 10.1007/s00701-024-06281-x
PII: 10.1007/s00701-024-06281-x
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most consistently reported complication of cranioplasty. No material showed a categorical superiority in the incidence of infection. Porous polyethylene (PE) is considered a low risk material regarding SSI. However, the literature data are very limited. Thus, our objective was to verify the assumed low incidence of SSI after PE cranioplasty in patients at high risk of SSI. The primary objective was the infection rate, while secondary objectives were implant exposure, revision and cosmetic results. METHOD: Patients who underwent three-dimensional (3D) personalized PE cranioplasty in the period 2014-2023 were evaluated prospectively. Only patients with an increased risk of SSI, and a satisfactory clinical conditions were included in the study. RESULTS: Thirty procedures were performed in 30 patients. Cranioplasty was performed 23 times after hemispheric decompressive craniectomy, five times after limited size craniotomy and two times after bifrontal decompressive craniectomy. Risk factors for the development of infection were 18 previous SSIs, 16 previous repeated revision surgeries, four intraoperatively opened frontal sinuses and two times radiotherapy. Neither infection nor implant exposure was detected in any patient. All patients were satisfied with the aesthetic result. In two cases, a revision was performed due to postoperative epidural hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional personalized PE cranioplasty is associated with an extremely low incidence of SSI even in high-risk patients. However, our conclusions can only be confirmed in larger studies.

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Alkhaibary A, Alharbi A, Alnefaie N, Oqalaa Almubarak A, Aloraidi A, Khairy S (2020) Cranioplasty: A comprehensive review of the history, materials, surgical aspects, and complications. World Neurosurg 139:445–452 PubMed

Celik H, Kurtulus A, Yildirim ME, Tekiner A, Erdem Y, Kantarci K, Kul H, Bayar MA (2022) The comparison of autologous bone, methyl-methacrylate, porous polyethylene, and titanium mesh in cranioplasty. Turk Neurosurg 32(5):841–844 PubMed

Cerveau T, Rossmann T, Clusmann H, Veldeman M (2023) Infection-related failure of autologous versus allogenic cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Spine 3:101760 PubMed PMC

Dujovny M, Fernandez P, Alperin N, Betz W, Misra M, Mafee M (1997) Post-cranioplasty cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamic changes: magnetic resonance imaging quantitative analysis. Neurol Res 19(3):311–316 PubMed

Fung C, Murek M, Klinger-Gratz PP, Fiechter M, Z’Graggen WJ, Gautschi OP, El-Koussy M, Gralla J, Schaller K, Zbinden M, Arnold M, Fischer U, Mattle HP, Raabe A, Beck J (2016) Effect of decompressive craniectomy on perihematomal edema in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. PLoS One 11(2):e0149169 PubMed PMC

Gosain AK, Persing JA (1999) Biomaterials in the face: benefits and risks. J Craniofac Surg 10(5):404–414 PubMed

Halani SH, Chu JK, Malcolm JG, Rindler RS, Allen JW, Grossberg JA, Pradilla G, Ahmad FU (2017) Effects of cranioplasty on cerebral blood flow following decompressive craniectomy: A systematic review of the literature. Neurosurgery 81(2):204–216 PubMed

Hawryluk GWJ, Rubiano AM, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, Ullman JS, Bratton SL, Chesnut R, Harris OA, Kissoon N, Shutter L, Tasker RC, Vavilala MS, Wilberger J, Wright DW, Lumba-Brown A, Ghajar J (2020) Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury: 2020 Update of the decompressive craniectomy recommendations. J Neurosurgery 87(3):427–434 PubMed PMC

Henry J, Amoo M, Taylor J, O’Brien DP (2021) Complications of cranioplasty in relation to material: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. Neurosurgery 89(3):383–394 PubMed

Honeybul S, Janzen C, Kruger K, Ho KM (2013) The impact of cranioplasty on neurological function. Br J Neurosurg 27(5):636–641 PubMed

Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Tajsic T, Adeleye A, Aklilu AT, Apriawan T, Bajamal AH, Barthélemy EJ, Devi BI, Bhat D, Bulters D, Chesnut R, Citerio G, Cooper DJ, Czosnyka M, Edem I, El-Ghandour NMF, Figaji A, Fountas KN, Gallagher C, Hawryluk GWJ, Iaccarino C, Joseph M, Khan T, Laeke T, Levchenko O, Liu B, Liu W, Maas A, Manley GT, Manson P, Mazzeo AT, Menon DK, Michael DB, Muehlschlegel S, Okonkwo DO, Park KB, Rosenfeld JV, Rosseau G, Rubiano AM, Shabani HK, Stocchetti N, Timmons SD, Timofeev I, Uff C, Ullman JS, Valadka A, Waran V, Wells A, Wilson MH, Servadei F (2019) Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury : Consensus statement. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 161(7):1261–1274 PubMed PMC

Iaccarino C, Kolias A, Adelson PD, Rubiano AM, Viaroli E, Buki A, Cinalli G, Fountas K, Khan T, Signoretti S, Waran V, Adeleye AO, Amorim R, Bertuccio A, Cama A, Chesnut RM, De Bonis P, Estraneo A, Figaji A, Florian SI, Formisano R, Frassanito P, Gatos C, Germanò A, Giussani C, Hossain I, Kasprzak P, La Porta F, Lindner D, Maas AIR, Paiva W, Palma P, Park KB, Peretta P, Pompucci A, Posti J, Sengupta SK, Sinha A, Sinha V, Stefini R, Talamonti G, Tasiou A, Zona G, Zucchelli M, Hutchinson PJ, Servadei F (2021) Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on post-traumatic cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 163(2):423–440 PubMed PMC

Iaccarino C, Kolias AG, Roumy LG, Fountas K, Adeleye AO (2020) Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy. Front Neurol 10:1357 PubMed PMC

Iwama T, Yamada J, Imai S, Shinoda J, Funakoshi T, Sakai N (2003) The use of frozen autogenous bone flaps in delayed cranioplasty revisited. Neurosurgery 52(3):591–596 PubMed

Kim BJ, Hong KS, Park KJ, Park DH, Chung YG, Kang SH (2012) Customized cranioplasty implants using three-dimensional printers and polymethyl-methacrylate casting. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52(6):541–546 PubMed PMC

Kim JK, Lee SB, Yang SY (2018) Cranioplasty using autologous bone versus porous polyethylene versus custom-made titanium mesh: A retrospective review of 108 patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 61(6):737–746 PubMed PMC

Konofaos P, Thompson RH, Wallace RD (2017) Long-term outcomes with porous polyethylene implant reconstruction of large craniofacial defects. Ann Plast Surg 79(5):467–472 PubMed

Kumar NG, Sreenivas M, Gowda S (2016) Cranioplasty of large cranial defects with porous polyethylene implants. J Craniofac Surg 27(4):e333–e335 PubMed

Lin J, Frontera JA (2021) Decompressive hemicraniectomy for large hemispheric strokes. Stroke 52(4):1500–1510 PubMed

Lindner D, Schlothofer-Schumann K, Kern BC, Marx O, Müns A, Meixensberger J (2017) Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial. J Neurosurg 126(1):175–183 PubMed

Liu L, Lu ST, Liu AH, Hou WB, Cao WR, Zhou C, Yin YX, Yuan KS, Liu HJ, Zhang MG, Zhang HJ (2020) Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 34(4):388–396 PubMed

Mah JK, Kass RA (2016) The impact of cranioplasty on cerebral blood flow and its correlation with clinical outcome in patients underwent decompressive craniectomy. Asian J Neurosurg 11(1):15–21 PubMed PMC

Malcolm JG, Mahmooth Z, Rindler RS (2018) Autologous cranioplasty is associated with increased reoperation rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 116:60–68 PubMed

Marlier B, Kleiber J-C, Bannwarth M, Theret E, Eap C, Litre CF (2017) Reconstruction of cranioplasty using medpor porouspolyethylene implant. Neurochirurgie 63(6):468–472 PubMed

Mee H, Anwar F, Timofeev I, Owens N, Grieve K, Whiting G, Alexander K, Kendrick K, Helmy A, Hutchinson P, Kolias A (2022) Cranioplasty: A multidisciplinary approach. Front Surg 9:864385 PubMed PMC

Mokal NJ, Desai MF (2011) Calvarial reconstruction using high-density porous polyethylene cranial hemispheres. Indian J Plast Surg 44(3):422–431 PubMed PMC

Morselli C, Zaed I, Tropeano MP, Cataletti G, Iaccarino C, Rossini Z, Servadei F (2019) Comparison between the different types of heterologous materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Sci 63(6):723–736 PubMed

Mracek J, Hommerova J, Mork J, Richtr P, Priban V (2015) Complications of cranioplasty using a bone flap sterilised by autoclaving following decompressive craniectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157(3):501–506 PubMed

Mracek J, Richtr P, Seidl M, Dostal J, Tupy R, Priban V (2022) Staged scalp soft tissue expansion before CAD/CAM porous polyethylene cranioplasty. Cesk Slov Neurol N 85/118(1):1–4

Paredes I, Castaño-León AM, Munarriz PM, Martínez-Perez R, Cepeda S, Sanz R, Alén JF, Lagares A (2015) Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. A prospective series analyzing complications and clinical improvement. A. Neurocirugia (Astur) 26(3):115–25 PubMed

Park EK, Lim JY, Yun IS, Kim JS, Woo SH, Kim DS, Shim KW (2016) Cranioplasty enhanced by three-dimensional printing: Custom-made three-dimensional-printed titanium implants for skull defects. J Craniofac Surg 27(4):943–949 PubMed

Seidl M, Mracek J, Dostal J, Priban V (2022) Computer-modeled cranioplasty from porous polyethylene in high-risk terrain. Cesk Slov Neurol N 85/118(5):410–413

Servadei F, Iaccarino C (2015) The therapeutic cranioplasty still needs an ideal material and surgical timing. World Neurosurg 83(2):133–135 PubMed

Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S (2014) Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 36(4):E19 PubMed

Siracusa V, Maimone G, Antonelli V (2021) State-of-art of standard and innovative materials used in cranioplasty. Polymers (Basel) 13(9):1452 PubMed PMC

Spake CSL, Beqiri D, Rao V, Crozier JW, Svokos KA, Woo AS (2021) Subgaleal drains may be associated with decreased infection following autologous cranioplasty: a retrospective analysis. Br J Neurosurg 9:1–7 PubMed

Stefini R, Esposito G, Zanotti E, Iaccarino C, Fontanella MM, Servadei F (2013) Use of “custom made” porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients. Surg Neurol Int 4:12 PubMed PMC

Tan ET, Ling JM, Dinesh SK (2016) The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer. J Neurosurg 124(5):1531–1537 PubMed

Tokoro K, Chiba Y, Tsubone K (1989) Late infection after cranioplasty–review of 14 cases. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 29(3):196–201 PubMed

van de Vijfeijken SECM, Münker TJAG, Spijker R, Karssemakers LHE, Vandertop WP, Becking AG, Ubbink (2018) Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties: Safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review. World Neurosurg 117:443-452.e8 PubMed

Veldeman M, Weiss M, Daleiden L, Albanna W, Schulze-Steinen H, Nikoubashman O, Clusmann H, Hoellig A, Schubert GA (2022) Decompressive hemicraniectomy after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage-justifiable in light of long-term outcome? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 164(7):1815–1826 PubMed PMC

Wang JC, Wei L, Xu J, Liu JF, Gui L (2012) Clinical outcome of cranioplasty with high-density porous polyethylene. J Craniofac Surg 23(5):1404–1406 PubMed

Winkler PA, Stummer W, Linke R, Krishnan KG, Tatsch K (2000) Influence of cranioplasty on postural blood flow regulation, cerebrovascular reserve capacity, and cerebral glucose metabolism. J Neurosurg 93(1):53–61 PubMed

Wolff A, Santiago GF, Belzberg M, Huggins CH, Lim M, Weingart J, Anderson W, Coon A, Huang J, Brem H, Gordon Ch (2018) Adult cranioplasty reconstruction with customized cranial implants: Preferred technique, timing, and biomaterials. J Craniofac Surg 29(4):887–894 PubMed

Yadla S, Campbell PG, Chitale R, Maltenfort MG, Jabbour P, Sharan AD (2011) Effect of early surgery, material, and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 68(4):1124–1129 PubMed

Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, Robiony M, Alfieri A, Parodi PC (2016) Cranioplasty: Review of materials. J Craniofac Surg 27(8):2061–2072 PubMed

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...