Outcomes and Complications of Pediatric Cranioplasty: A Systematic Review
- PMID: 31461029
- DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005933
Outcomes and Complications of Pediatric Cranioplasty: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Background: Pediatric calvarial reconstruction is challenging because of the unique anatomical and growth considerations in this population. Comparative studies evaluating current cranioplasty materials are lacking. This review addresses the knowledge gap in pediatric cranioplasty outcomes with emphasis on current materials used.
Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Outcome data comparing fresh bone, banked bone, titanium, poly(methyl methacrylate), and polyetheretherketone were abstracted.
Results: Twenty studies met the authors' selection criteria. The mean patient age ranged from 4 to 17.4 years. Autologous cranioplasty was performed in 439 patients, and 201 patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction. Fresh bone grafts and titanium mesh were associated with the lowest infection rates (0.4 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively; p < 0.001), graft failures (2.9 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively; p < 0.001), and surgical-site occurrence rates (8.8 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively; p < 0.001). Banked bone flaps had the highest overall complication rates (51 percent; p < 0.001), bone resorption (39.7 percent; p < 0.001), and failure rates (40.2 percent; p < 0.001), whereas polyetherether ketone had the highest rates of infection (16.1 percent; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Based on the available evidence to date, fresh bone grafts and titanium mesh demonstrated the lowest surgical-site infection, surgical-site occurrence, and graft failure rates. Banked bone flaps had the highest overall surgical-site complications and graft failures. Pediatric cranioplasty outcomes studies are needed to evaluate current and novel cranioplasty materials.
Comment in
-
Discussion: Outcomes and Complications of Pediatric Cranioplasty: A Systematic Review.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Sep;144(3):444e-445e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005994. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019. PMID: 31461030 No abstract available.
References
-
- Courville CB. Cranioplasty in prehistoric times. Bull Los Angel Neuro Soc. 1959;24:1–8.
-
- Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, Aydin S, Sanus GZ. Cranioplasty: Review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2011;2:162–167.
-
- Sanan A, Haines SJ. Repairing holes in the head: A history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 1997;40:588–603.
-
- Gao LL, Rogers GF, Clune JE, et al. Autologous cranial particulate bone grafting reduces the frequency of osseous defects after cranial expansion. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:318–322.
-
- Durand JL, Renier D, Marchac D. The history of cranioplasty (in French). Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 1997;42:75–83.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
