Iaccarino Corrado, Viaroli Edoardo, Fricia Marco, Serchi Elena, Poli Tito, Servadei Franco
Staff Neurosurgeon, Neurosurgery-Neurotraumatology Unit, AOU Parma, ASMN-IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Staff Neurosurgeon, Neurosurgery-Neurotraumatology Unit, AOU Parma, ASMN-IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Dec;73(12):2375-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.07.008. Epub 2015 Jul 20.
Given its biological and anatomic features, autologous bone is the first choice for cranioplasty after bone decompression. When autologous bone is not available or must be replaced, surgeons can choose among various materials to create an alloplastic cranioplasty. The Italian Society for Neurosurgery promoted a prospective study conducted at 4 Italian neurosurgical units to compare different methods of cranioplasty and to assess the clinical results and incidence of complications.
Patients older than 14 years who underwent repositioning of autologous bone or 3-dimensional image-guided reconstruction with prostheses made of an alloplastic material (polyetheretherketone, polymethylmethacrylate, or hydroxyapatite) after cranial decompression were enrolled prospectively from January 2008 through December 2013. The collected data included the material used to produce the prosthesis, the type of cranioplasty (primary or secondary), and complications that required surgical removal of the prosthesis (eg, infection, bone resorption, and fracture of the cranioplasty).
Ninety-six patients met the study criteria. Fifty cases were reconstructed with hydroxyapatite, 31 with bone, 13 with polymethylmethacrylate, and 2 with polyetheretherketone. Seven patients (7.3%) developed complications related to the cranioplastic implant that required reoperation. These complications included infection (4 cases), bone resorption (2 cases), and fracture of the cranioplastic prosthesis (1 case). Statistical analysis showed a higher rate of complications with the use of autologous bone versus alloplastic materials (P = .03). Owing to the limited number of cases, no statistically meaningful complication was seen among the different alloplastic materials or when the cranioplastic implant was placed as secondary treatment.
These data and those of other reports suggest that cranioplasty conducted using alloplastic 3-dimensional reconstruction materials have a lower rate of complications than those conducted using autologous bone.
鉴于自体骨的生物学和解剖学特性,它是颅骨减压术后颅骨成形术的首选材料。当无法获取自体骨或必须更换时,外科医生可在多种材料中进行选择以实施异体颅骨成形术。意大利神经外科学会开展了一项前瞻性研究,该研究在4个意大利神经外科单位进行,旨在比较不同的颅骨成形术方法,并评估临床结果及并发症发生率。
2008年1月至2013年12月期间,前瞻性纳入了年龄大于14岁、在颅骨减压术后接受自体骨复位或采用异体材料(聚醚醚酮、聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯或羟基磷灰石)制成的假体进行三维图像引导重建的患者。收集的数据包括用于制作假体的材料、颅骨成形术的类型(一期或二期)以及需要手术取出假体的并发症(如感染、骨吸收和颅骨成形术骨折)。
96例患者符合研究标准。50例采用羟基磷灰石重建,31例采用自体骨,13例采用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯,2例采用聚醚醚酮。7例患者(7.3%)出现了与颅骨成形植入物相关的并发症,需要再次手术。这些并发症包括感染(4例)、骨吸收(2例)和颅骨成形假体骨折(1例)。统计分析显示,与异体材料相比,使用自体骨时并发症发生率更高(P = .03)。由于病例数量有限,在不同的异体材料之间或当颅骨成形植入物作为二期治疗放置时,未观察到具有统计学意义的并发症。
这些数据以及其他报告的数据表明,使用异体三维重建材料进行的颅骨成形术比使用自体骨进行的颅骨成形术并发症发生率更低。