Prospective study on cranioplasty with individual carbon fiber reinforced polymere (CFRP) implants produced by means of stereolithography

Wurm, Gabriele; Tomancok, Berndt; Höll, K.; Trenkler, Johannes

doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2004.01.025

Cited by 59 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The postcranioplasty infection rate among 151 PEEK implants in our series was 6%, and, as in other studies, suggests that synthetic prostheses have infection rates similar to those with ABFs. 4,14,19,23,25,[27][28][29] Most important in our results is the favorable comparison between protocols A and B as regards the reimplantation of +ABFs despite intraoperative bone cultures of skin flora. Specifically, there was no increased risk of postcranioplasty infection in cases in which a +ABF was reimplanted, and there was no concordance between the organisms from the few postcranioplasty infections using +ABF and the original intraoperative cultured organisms at the time of craniectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…In these cases, there was a logistical desire by both the physician and the patient's family to replace the ABF during the primary hospitalization rather than after discharge. The total number of patients (27) who underwent an ultra-early cranioplasty was relatively small, but the infection rate of 18.5% among this group was significant and probably represents an avoidable risk. Replacing the bone flap 30 days later, which would still be considered early according to several previous studies, did not confer additional infection risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…This relatively common neurosurgical procedure is associated with complication rates of 15%-35%, 4,6,[8][9][10][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] with the most frequent complication being postoperative infection. The highest reported clinical infection rate after cranioplasty is 26%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predictors of infection after 754 cranioplasty operations and the value of intraoperative cultures for cryopreserved bone flaps

Morton¹,

Abecassis²,

Hanson³

et al. 2016

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictors of infection afterobJective The authors' aim was to report the largest study on predictors of infection after cranioplasty and to assess the predictive value of intraoperative bone flap cultures before cryopreservation. methods They retrospectively examined all cranioplasties performed between March 2004 and November 2014. Throughout this study period, the standard protocol during initial craniectomy was to obtain a culture swab of the extracted autologous bone flap (ABF)-prior to its placement in cytostorage-to screen for microbial contamination. Two consecutive protocols were employed for the use and interpretation of the intraoperative swab culture results: A) From March 2004 through June 2013, any culture-positive ABF (+ABF) was discarded and a custom synthetic prosthesis was implanted at the time of cranioplasty. B) From July 2013 through November 2014, any ABF with a skin flora organism was not discarded. Instead, cryopreservation was maintained and the +ABF was re-implanted after a 10-minute soak in bacitracin irrigation as well as a 3-minute soak in betadine. results Over the 10.75-year period, 754 cranioplasty procedures were performed. The median time from craniectomy to cranioplasty was 123 days. Median follow-up after cranioplasty was 237 days for protocol A and 225 days for protocol B. The overall infection rate after cranioplasty was 6.6% (50 cases) occurring at a median postoperative Day 31. Staphylococcus spp. were involved as the causative organisms in 60% of cases. Culture swabs taken at the time of initial craniectomy were available for 640 ABFs as 114 ABFs were not salvageable. One hundred twenty-six (20%) were culture positive. Eighty-nine +ABFs occurred during protocol A and were discarded in favor of a synthetic prosthesis at the time of cranioplasty, whereas 37 +ABFs occurred under protocol B and were reimplanted at the time of cranioplasty. Cranioplasty material did not affect the postcranioplasty infection rate. There was no significant difference in the infection rate among sterile ABFs (7%), +ABFs (8%), and synthetic prostheses (5.5%; p = 0.425). All 3 +ABF infections under protocol B were caused by organisms that differed from those in the original intraoperative bone culture from the initial craniectomy. A cranioplasty procedure ≤ 14 days after initial craniectomy was the only significant predictor of postcranioplasty infection (p = 0.007, HR 3.62). coNclusioNs Cranioplasty procedures should be performed at least 14 days after initial craniectomy to minimize infection risk. Obtaining intraoperative bone cultures at the time of craniectomy in the absence of clinical infection should be discontinued as the culture results were not a useful predictor of postcranioplasty infection and led to the unnecessary use of synthetic prostheses and increased health care costs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictors of infection after 754 cranioplasty operations and the value of intraoperative cultures for cryopreserved bone flaps

Morton¹,

Abecassis²,

Hanson³

et al. 2016

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the past 20 years or so, much has been achieved through research on the techniques to produce customized cranioplasty implants. 13,14,19,21,27,34,36,48,49,54,56 Nevertheless, these impressive techniques have generally remained in the respective laboratories and universities in which they were developed. This is because they require technical expertise as well as expensive, sophisticated software and machinery that are beyond the means of most surgeons and hospitals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer

Tan¹,

Ling²,

Dinesh³

2016

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he reconstruction of a skull vault defect, termed cranioplasty, has a rich and fascinating history. For at least 5 millennia, surgeons have patched cranial defects with an immensely diverse range of materials ranging from fruit shells to sheep scapulae and man-made plastics. 42 Even today, the pursuit of the perfect cranioplasty material and technique continues.Skull defects are often the direct result of surgical decompressive craniectomy performed for acute neurosurgical emergencies. 23 The use of a patient's original bone flap for cranioplasty is theoretically sound and avoids the problems related to the use of bone from other sources, such as human cadavers (allografts) or animals (xenografts), or the use of synthetic materials. In practice, however, cranioplasty using these bone flaps, which have been stored for a period of time either in a surgically created subcutaneous pocket or in a medical freezer, is plagued with a not insignificant risk of infections and bony resorption. 8,11,22 With unnatural storage, the nature and content of these bone flaps are changed permanently, hindering successful reincorporation as part of the skull vault. Loss of osteogenesis probably plays a role; studies on human calvarial bone flaps have shown a diminution of osteoblasts after both subcutaneous 44 The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer eddie t. w. tan, mrcsed, Ji min ling, mrcsed, and shree Kumar dinesh, FrcsDepartment of Neurosurgery, National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore obJective Commercially available, preformed patient-specific cranioplasty implants are anatomically accurate but costly. Acrylic bone cement is a commonly used alternative. However, the manual shaping of the bone cement is difficult and may not lead to a satisfactory implant in some cases. The object of this study was to determine the feasibility of fabricating molds using a commercial low-cost 3D printer for the purpose of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants. methods Using data from a high-resolution brain CT scan of a patient with a calvarial defect posthemicraniectomy, a skull phantom and a mold were generated with computer software and fabricated with the 3D printer using the fused deposition modeling method. The mold was used as a template to shape the acrylic implant, which was formed via a polymerization reaction. The resulting implant was fitted to the skull phantom and the cranial index of symmetry was determined. results The skull phantom and mold were successfully fabricated with the 3D printer. The application of acrylic bone cement to the mold was simple and straightforward. The resulting implant did not require further adjustment or drilling prior to being fitted to the skull phantom. The cranial index of symmetry was 96.2% (the cranial index of symmetry is 100% for a perfectly symmetrical skull). coNclusioNs This study showed that it is feasible to produce patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer. Further studies...

show abstract

“…27,66 Once patients undergo decompressive craniectomy, those who survive are obligated to undergo a second procedure for surgical cranial reconstruction, that is, cranioplasty. Much of the modern literature regarding cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is based on case series that emphasize the technical aspects of the procedure such as the use of materials, 2,3,9,10,12,14,26,30,33,35,[50][51][52]54,55,60,63,68,70,71 the use of techniques to store the bone flap prior to reconstruction, 16,19,24,25,43,48,49,72 the timing of surgical intervention, 6,37 or other specific modifications to either the craniectomy or cranioplasty procedure, which may influence the cranioplasty. 20,28,34,36,38,41,47,67 There are relatively few modern-day large clinical series describing the clinical outcomes and perioperative complications of cranioplasties in the setting of nonpenetrating traumatic brain injury and large vessel infarction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases

Gooch

Gin²,

Kenning³

et al. 2009

FOC

386

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Decompressive craniectomy is a potentially life-saving procedure used in the treatment of medically refractory intracranial hypertension, most commonly in the setting of trauma or cerebral infarction. Once performed, surviving patients are obligated to undergo a second procedure for cranial reconstruction. The complications following cranial reconstruction are not well described in the literature and may very well be underreported. A review of the complications would suggest measures to improve the care of these patients. Methods A retrospective chart review was undertaken of all patients who had undergone cranioplasty during a 7-year period. Demographic data, indications for craniectomy, as well as preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters following cranioplasty, were recorded. Perioperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Patients were classified as having no complications, any complications, and complications requiring reoperation. The groups were compared to identify risk factors predictive of poor outcomes. Results The authors identified 62 patients who had undergone cranioplasty. The immediate postoperative complication rate was 34%. Of these, 46 patients did not require reoperation and 16 did. Of those requiring reoperation, 7 were due to infection, 2 from wound breakdown, 2 from intracranial hemorrhage, 3 from bone resorption, and 1 from a sunken cranioplasty, and 1 patient's cranioplasty procedure was prematurely ended due to intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia. The only factor statistically associated with need for reoperation was the presence of a bifrontal cranial defect (bifrontal: 8 [67%] of 12, requiring reoperation; unilateral: 8 [16%] of 49 requiring reoperation; p < 0.01) Conclusions Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is associated with a high complication rate. Patients undergoing a bifrontal craniectomy are at significantly increased risk for postcranioplasty complications, including the need for reoperation.

show abstract

Prospective study on cranioplasty with individual carbon fiber reinforced polymere (CFRP) implants produced by means of stereolithography

Cited by 59 publications

References 40 publications

Predictors of infection after 754 cranioplasty operations and the value of intraoperative cultures for cryopreserved bone flaps

Predictors of infection after 754 cranioplasty operations and the value of intraoperative cultures for cryopreserved bone flaps

The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer

Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About