Skip to main content
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open logoLink to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
. 2018 Sep 26;6(9 Suppl):206-207. doi: 10.1097/01.GOX.0000547103.16500.77

Abstract: Patient-Specific Implants for Cranioplasty: Is There an Ideal Implant?

Jennifer L McGrath 1, Rachel Armstrong 1, Marco F Ellis 1
PMCID: PMC6212104

INTRODUCTION: While the ideal synthetic material for cranioplasty remains elusive, the use of prefabricated alloplastic implants has many proposed advantages. Custom implants that fit a patient’s specific defect can reduce operative time and improve contour. Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) has a long history of use for large cranioplasty defects. However, advances in 3D printing have led to an increased popularity of polymer alloplastic materials such as polyether-ketone-ketone (PEKK) implants. No direct comparisons of PMMA and PEKK exist in the literature. We present a retrospective analysis of PMMA and PEKK patient-specific implants at a single institution.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed identifying patients undergoing patient-specific implant (PSI) cranioplasty at Northwestern Memorial Hospital between January 2013 and July 2017. Medical records were reviewed for patient characteristics, indications, surgical details, implant type, and post-operative complications. Patients were divided into groups based on cranioplasty type (PMMA vs PEKK). Comparisons between groups were made using the student’s t test and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS: 74 patients underwent PSI cranioplasty during the study period. Thirty-five (47.3%) had PMMA implants and 39 (52.7%) had PEEK implants. Patients were 51% male with an average age of 44. There were no differences between groups except for follow up length (17 months vs 7 months, p=0.002). Plastic surgery involvement was more common in patients with a history of infectious complications (46% v 26%). The overall failure rate for PSI cranioplasty was 14.3%. There was no difference in failure rate when comparing PMMA to PEKK (14.7% vs 13.9%, p>0.05). There was no significant difference in complications between PMMA and PEKK (41.0% vs 34.3%, P>0.05). Infection rates were equivalent between groups (17.1% vs 16.7%). Delayed wound healing was also equivalent (8.8% vs 13.9%, p>0.05). When reviewing the 10 failures, 7 occurred in patients with prior infection, 5 in patients with a history of radiation, and 3 with both.

CONCLUSION: PMMA and PEKK have similar complication profiles for patient-specific implant cranioplasty. Complication rates remain high for both materials, with wound healing and infectious complications and radiation carrying high risk of implant failure.


Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES