Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan-Feb;32(1):193-197.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007192.

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With PEEK Versus Titanium Cranioplasty Reconstruction

Malke Asaad  1 , Editt N Taslakian  2 , Joseph Banuelos  1 , Amjed Abu-Ghname  1 , Uldis Bite  1 , Samir Mardini  1 , Jamie J Van Gompel  3 , Basel Sharaf  1
Affiliations

Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With PEEK Versus Titanium Cranioplasty Reconstruction

Malke Asaad et al. J Craniofac Surg. 2021 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Background: Several materials are available for cranioplasty reconstruction and consensus regarding the ideal material is lacking. The goal of this study is to present surgical and patient-reported outcomes with PEEK versus Titanium alloplastic cranioplasty.

Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent alloplastic cranioplasty with PEEK or Titanium from 2010 to 2017 was conducted. Patient demographics and complications were abstracted and analyzed. Information regarding patient-reported outcomes was collected through a telephone survey.

Results: A total of 72 patients (median age 55 years) who underwent 77 cranioplasties were identified (38% PEEK, n = 29; 62% Titanium, n = 48). Overall complication rates were similar between the PEEK (24%, n = 7) and Titanium groups (23%, n = 11), P = 0.902. Similarly, implant failure was similar between the 2 groups (7% in PEEK (n = 2), 13% in Titanium (n = 6), P = 0.703). History of radiation was associated with increased rate of infection in patients with Titanium mesh cranioplasty (38% in radiated patients (n = 3), 3% in nonradiated patients (n = 1), P = 0.012) but not PEEK implants (0% infection rate in radiated patients (n = 0), 15% in nonradiated patients (n = 4), P = 1.000). A total of 24 patients (33% response rate) participated in the telephone survey. All PEEK cranioplasty patients who responded to our survey (n = 13) reported good to excellent satisfaction, while 72% of our titanium mesh cohort (n = 8) described good or excellent satisfaction and 27% (n = 3) reported acceptable result.

Conclusion: Cranial reconstruction is associated with high satisfaction among cranioplasty patients with PEEK or Titanium showing comparable complications, failure, and patient-reported satisfaction rates. Patients with history of radiotherapy demonstrated a higher infection rate when titanium mesh was used.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Sanan A, Haines SJ. Repairing holes in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 1997; 40:588–603.
    1. Rifkinson-Mann S. Cranial surgery in ancient Peru. Neurosurgery 1988; 23:411–416.
    1. Goldstein JA, Paliga JT, Bartlett SP. Cranioplasty: indications and advances. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 21:400–409.
    1. Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 36:E19.
    1. De Bonis P, Frassanito P, Mangiola A, et al. Cranial repair: how complicated is filling a “hole”? J Neurotrauma 2012; 29:1071–1076.

LinkOut - more resources