Autogenous Bone Graft versus Artificial Substitutes in Cranioplasty

Abstract

Cranioplasty is a routine procedure in neurosurgery. However, it has a high postoperative complication rate up to 40%. The lack of good prospective studies and the small number of patients who receive artificial substitutes make it difficult to choose between different materials and the decision is mostly based on subjective or economic reasons. The main goal of this study was to compare the most common complications related to the implant within the first year after implantation. Methods: This prospective randomized clinical study has been carried out on 32 patients with cranial defects of different etiologies, sites and sizes which have been operated in Assiut

Bone reconstruction surgery of complex craniomaxillofacial deformities using additive manufacturing customized implants - a case report

“…This material is molded during the surgery, which may be time-consuming. There is also the possibility of exothermic reactions during preparation and the release of toxic monomers, causing an inflammatory response (Goiato et al , 2009; Hassan et al , 2019). Although these conventional surgical techniques have been used extensively, they have limitations for large defect reconstructions (Parthasarathy, 2014), in particular, the ability of these techniques to achieve precise adaptation of the implant and consequently, better aesthetic results.…”

“…Customized titanium alloy metallic implants are mainly obtained through PBF (Chen et al , 2015). Hassan et al (2019) compared artificial implants (PMMA, porous polyethylene and titanium mesh) with autologous bone substitutes and observed a 50% complication rate due to infection when using PMMA, although no cases of infection were observed in patients using titanium mesh. On the other hand, these meshes resulted in wound dehiscence and poor cosmetic results.…”