4.5 Article

Reconstruction of Cranial Vault Defect with Polyetheretherketone Implants

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 783-789

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.049

Keywords

Polyetheretherketone; Prosthesis; Reconstruction of the cranial vault

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECT: Reconstruction of a cranial vault defect is a frequent challenge in neurosurgery. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is used in many types of prostheses and has been employed for 10 years in our institution (University Hospital of Toulouse, France). The objectives of this study are to describe the benefits and drawbacks of reconstructing the cranial vault defect with a PEEK prosthesis. METHODS: Clinical data of the 37 patients who received a reconstruction with a custom-made PEEK prosthesis from 2007-2015 were retrospectively analysed. Operative technique, postoperative complications, and patient's satisfaction with the aesthetic result-on a scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) were studied. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 4.3 years (from 2 months-9 years). The placement of the prosthesis was performed 195 days on average (from 0-1051 days, standard deviation 258 days) after the initial bone flap removal. One infection (2.7%), which required the removal of the prosthesis, was described. Six patients (16%) were re-operated by the maxillofacial surgery team to treat a lack of temporal projection related to muscle atrophy, using a fat cell autograft taken from the abdominal region. Overall, 30 patients (81%) answered the question about their aesthetic satisfaction, with good results on the satisfaction scale (average 4.5; from 3-5). CONCLUSION: The use of a PEEK prosthesis in cranial vault defect reconstruction is a reliable technique with a high patient satisfaction rate and few complications. Corrections of the temporal muscle atrophy by fat grafting may be performed in addition, without increasing the rate of complications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available