Complications and Cosmetic Outcomes of Materials Used in Cranioplasty Following Decompressive Craniectomy-a Systematic Review, Pairwise Meta-analysis, and Network Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Acta Neurochir (Wien)

Specialty Neurosurgery

Date 2022 May 20

PMID 35593924

Authors

Jakob V E Gerstl

Luis F Rendon

Shane M Burke

Joanne Doucette

Rania A Mekary

Timothy R Smith

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Optimal reconstruction materials for cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy (DC) remain unclear. This systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis compares cosmetic outcomes and complications of autologous bone grafts and alloplasts used for cranioplasty following DC.

Method: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception until April 2021. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis was used to compare pooled outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of autologous bone to combined alloplasts. A frequentist network meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to compare multiple individual materials.

Results: Of 2033 articles screened, 30 studies were included, consisting of 29 observational studies and one randomized control trial. Overall complications were statistically significantly higher for autologous bone compared to combined alloplasts (RR = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.14-2.13), hydroxyapatite (RR = 2.60, 95%CI = 1.17-5.78), polymethylmethacrylate (RR = 1.50 95%CI = 1.08-2.08), and titanium (Ti) (RR = 1.56 95%CI = 1.03-2.37). Resorption occurred only in autologous bone (15.1%) and not in alloplasts (0.0%). When resorption was not considered, there was no difference in overall complications between autologous bone and combined alloplasts (RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.75-1.34), nor between any individual materials. Dehiscence was lower for autologous bone compared to combined alloplasts (RR = 0.39, 95%CI = 0.19-0.79) and Ti (RR = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.15-0.76). There was no difference between autologous bone and combined alloplasts with respect to infection (RR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.56-1.30), migration (RR = 1.36, 95%CI = 0.63-2.93), hematoma (RR = 0.98, 95%CI = 0.53-1.79), seizures (RR = 0.83, 95%CI = 0.29-2.35), satisfactory cosmesis (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.71-1.08), and reoperation (RR = 1.66, 95%CI = 0.90-3.08).

Conclusions: Bone resorption is only a consideration in autologous cranioplasty compared to bone substitutes explaining higher complications for autologous bone. Dehiscence is higher in alloplasts, particularly in Ti, compared to autologous bone.

Citing Articles

Early osteointegration in "one-step" resection and reconstruction using porous hydroxyapatite custom implants for skull-infiltrating tumors: a monocentric prospective series.

Messina R, Speranzon L, De Gennaro L, Nigri E, Dibenedetto M, Bozzi M Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024; 166(1):470.

PMID: 39576356 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06361-y.

The role of autologous bone in cranioplasty. A systematic review of complications and risk factors by using stored bone.

Birgersson U, Svedung Wettervik T, Sundblom J, Kihlstrom Burenstam Linder L Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024; 166(1):438.

PMID: 39495337 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06312-7.

Challenging frontiers in neuroplastic cranial reconstruction: addressing neurosurgical wound healing complications through interdisciplinary collaboration - an observational study.

Aufschnaiter-Hiessboeck K, Stefanits H, Rossmann T, Aichholzer M, Senker W, Rauch P Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024; 166(1):432.

PMID: 39472344 PMC: 11522051. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06328-z.

Complication rates after autologous cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy.

Ritter L, Strohhacker K, Schebesch K, Eibl T, Hohne J, Liebert A Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024; 166(1):380.

PMID: 39320557 PMC: 11424706. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06282-w.

Cranial stair-step incision for minimizing postoperative complications in neuro-oncologic surgery: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Park J, Filo J, Rahmani B, Adebagbo O, Lee D, Escobar-Domingo M Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024; 166(1):305.

PMID: 39046560 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06207-7.

References

Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles C, Hagen N, Biondo P, Cummings G . Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 18(1):12-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x. View

Barzaghi L, Parisi V, Gigliotti C, Giudice L, Snider S, DellAcqua A . Bone resorption in autologous cryopreserved cranioplasty: quantitative evaluation, semiquantitative score and clinical significance. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019; 161(3):483-491. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-018-03789-x. View

Bobinski L, Koskinen L, Lindvall P . Complications following cranioplasty using autologous bone or polymethylmethacrylate--retrospective experience from a single center. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013; 115(9):1788-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2013.04.013. View

Brommeland T, Rydning P, Pripp A, Helseth E . Cranioplasty complications and risk factors associated with bone flap resorption. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015; 23:75. PMC: 4595108. DOI: 10.1186/s13049-015-0155-6. View

Chaimani A, Salanti G . Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 3(2):161-76. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.57. View

Cheng C, Lee H, Chen C, Cho D, Lin H . Cryopreservation versus subcutaneous preservation of autologous bone flaps for cranioplasty: comparison of the surgical site infection and bone resorption rates. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014; 124:85-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.06.029. View

Chim H, Gosain A . Biomaterials in craniofacial surgery: experimental studies and clinical application. J Craniofac Surg. 2009; 20(1):29-33. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318190dd9e. View

Creutzfeldt C, Tirschwell D, Kim L, Schubert G, Longstreth Jr W, Becker K . Seizures after decompressive hemicraniectomy for ischaemic stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013; 85(7):721-5. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305678. View

Di Rienzo A, Pangrazi P, Riccio M, Colasanti R, Ghetti I, Iacoangeli M . Skin flap complications after decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty: Proposal of classification and treatment options. Surg Neurol Int. 2016; 7(Suppl 28):S737-S745. PMC: 5114861. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.193724. View

10.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629-34. PMC: 2127453. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. View

11.

Feroze A, Walmsley G, Choudhri O, Lorenz H, Grant G, Edwards M . Evolution of cranioplasty techniques in neurosurgery: historical review, pediatric considerations, and current trends. J Neurosurg. 2015; 123(4):1098-107. DOI: 10.3171/2014.11.JNS14622. View

12.

Giese H, Antritter J, Unterberg A, Beynon C . Long-Term Results of Neurological Outcome, Quality of Life, and Cosmetic Outcome After Cranioplastic Surgery: A Single Center Study of 202 Patients. Front Neurol. 2021; 12:702339. PMC: 8329417. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.702339. View

13.

Hambock M, Hosmann A, Seemann R, Wolf H, Schachinger F, Hajdu S . The impact of implant material and patient age on the long-term outcome of secondary cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020; 162(4):745-753. PMC: 7066309. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-020-04243-7. View

14.

Henry J, Amoo M, Taylor J, OBrien D . Complications of Cranioplasty in Relation to Material: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. Neurosurgery. 2021; 89(3):383-394. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyab180. View

15.

Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414):557-60. PMC: 192859. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. View

16.

Hirschmann D, Kranawetter B, Tomschik M, Wais J, Winter F, Frischer J . New-onset seizures after cranioplasty-a different view on a putatively frequently observed phenomenon. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021; 163(5):1437-1442. PMC: 8053646. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-04720-7. View

17.

Honeybul S, Ho K . How "successful" is calvarial reconstruction using frozen autologous bone?. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 130(5):1110-1117. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318267d4de. View

18.

Honeybul S, Ho K . The current role of decompressive craniectomy in the management of neurological emergencies. Brain Inj. 2013; 27(9):979-91. DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2013.794974. View

19.

Honeybul S, Ho K . Decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury: the relationship between surgical complications and the prediction of an unfavourable outcome. Injury. 2014; 45(9):1332-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.03.007. View

20.

Honeybul S, Morrison D, Ho K, Wiggins A, Janzen C, Kruger K . Complications and consent following decompressive craniectomy: an illustrative case study. Brain Inj. 2013; 27(13-14):1732-6. DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2013.830194. View