High-Density Porous Polyethylene Implant Cranioplasty: A Systematic Review of Outcomes
- PMID: 38682928
- DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000010135
High-Density Porous Polyethylene Implant Cranioplasty: A Systematic Review of Outcomes
Abstract
Porous polyethylene has been widely used in craniofacial reconstruction due to its biomechanical properties and ease of handling. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to summarize outcomes utilizing high-density porous polyethylene (HDPP) implants in cranioplasty. A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted to identify original studies with HDPP cranioplasty from inception to March 2023. Non-English articles, commentaries, absent indications or outcomes, and nonclinical studies were excluded. Data on patient demographics, indications, defect size and location, outcomes, and patient satisfaction were extracted. Summary statistics were calculated using weighted averages based on the available reported data. A total of 1089 patients involving 1104 cranioplasty procedures with HDPP were identified. Patients' mean age was 44.0 years (range 2 to 83 y). The mean follow-up duration was 32.0 months (range 2 wk to 8 y). Two studies comprising 17 patients (1.6%) included only pediatric patients. Alloplastic cranioplasty was required after treatment of cerebrovascular diseases (50.9%), tumor excision (32.0%), trauma (11.4%), trigeminal neuralgia/epilepsy (3.4%), and others such as abscesses/cysts (1.4%). The size of the defect ranged from 3 to 340 cm 2 . An overall postoperative complication rate of 2.3% was identified, especially in patients who had previously undergone surgery at the same site. When data were available, contour improvement and high patient satisfaction were reported in 98.8% and 98.3% of the patients. HDPP implants exhibit favorable outcomes for reconstruction of skull defects. Higher complication rates may be anticipated in secondary cranioplasty cases.
Copyright © 2024 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Goldstein JA, Paliga JT, Bartlett SP. Cranioplasty: indications and advances. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;21:400–409
-
- Cabbad NC, Stalder MW, Arroyave A, et al. Autogenous bone cranioplasty: Review of a 42-year experience by a single surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143:1713–1723
-
- Sable H, Patel MP, Shah KB. A prospective comparative study of different methods of cranioplasty: Our institutional experience. Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2020;09:17–23
-
- Sahoo N, Roy ID, Desai AP, et al. Comparative evaluation of autogenous calvarial bone graft and alloplastic materials for secondary reconstruction of cranial defects. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:79–82
-
- Fearon JA, Griner D, Ditthakasem K, et al. Autogenous bone reconstruction of large secondary skull defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139:427–438
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
