Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE Cranioplasty is routinely performed in neurosurgery. One of its underestimated problems is the high postoperative complication rate of up to 40%. Due to the lack of good prospective studies and the small number of patients (5-20 each year) who receive alloplastic materials, decisions in favor or against a certain material are based on subjective empirical or economic reasons. The main goal of this study-the first prospective, randomized multicenter study in Germany-of custom-made titanium and hydroxyapatite (HA) implants was to compare local and systemic infections related to the implant within the first 6 months after implantation. Secondary objectives included comparing the reoperation rate, the complication rate, clinical and neurological outcomes, and health-related quality of life. METHODS The study included patient screening and randomization at 6 to 8 weeks before operation; pre-, intra-, and postoperative documentation until discharge; and postoperative follow-ups after 1 and 6 months. Approval for the study was obtained from the local ethics committee. RESULTS A total of 52 patients were included in the study. The rate of local implant-associated wound infection in the HA group was 2 of 26 (7.7%) patients and 5 of 24 (20.8%) patients in the titanium group (p = 0.407). Systemic inflammation within 6 months after operation affected none of the patients in the HA group and 4 of 24 (37.5%) patients in the titanium group (p = 0.107). In both groups, 7 patients required reoperation after the 6-month follow-up (26.9% of the HA group and 29.2% of the titanium group; not significant). Reoperation with an explantation was necessary in 3 patients in each group (11.5% of the HA group and 12.5% of the titanium group; not significant). The results demonstrated a significantly higher number of epidural hematomas in the HA group in comparison with none in the titanium group. Altogether, 46 adverse events were found in 27 patients (54%). An improvement in the neurological outcome after 6 months was experienced by 43% of the patients in the HA group and 26.3% of the patients in the titanium group (p = 0.709). CONCLUSIONS The study emphasizes that cranioplasty is a high-risk intervention. In comparison with titanium, HA shows benefits in terms of the infection rate and the neurological outcome, but at the same time has a higher postoperative risk for epidural hematoma. Depending on the individual conditions, both materials have their place in future cranioplasty therapies. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00923793 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

[1]  F. Servadei,et al.  Use of “custom made” porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients , 2013, Surgical neurology international.

[2]  Amir H. Dorafshar,et al.  Clinical Outcomes in Cranioplasty: Risk Factors and Choice of Reconstructive Material , 2014, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[3]  D. Seyfried,et al.  Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery.

[4]  A. Dogan,et al.  Timing of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery.

[5]  S. Tjoumakaris,et al.  Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  C. Compagnone,et al.  Custom made cranioplasty prostheses in porous hydroxy-apatite using 3D design techniques: 7 years experience in 25 patients , 2007, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[7]  P. Schauerte,et al.  The Modified Glasgow Outcome Score for the prediction of outcome in patients after cardiac arrest: a prospective clinical proof of concept study , 2012, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[8]  L. Gottlieb,et al.  Latissimus dorsi/rib intercostal perforator myo-osseocutaneous free flap reconstruction in composite defects of the scalp: case series and review of literature. , 2009, Journal of reconstructive microsurgery.

[9]  K. Ho,et al.  Cranioplasty with custom-made titanium plates--14 years experience. , 2013, Neurosurgery.

[10]  A. Barbanera,et al.  Custom made bioceramic implants in complex and large cranial reconstruction: a two-year follow-up. , 2012, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[11]  L. Massimi,et al.  Post-marketing surveillance of CustomBone Service implanted in children under 7 years old , 2014, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[12]  Veit Rohde,et al.  Cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy: Underestimated surgery-associated complications? , 2013, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.

[13]  A. Helmy,et al.  Proposal for establishment of the UK Cranial Reconstruction Registry (UKCRR) , 2014, British journal of neurosurgery.

[14]  B. Thakur,et al.  Complications of titanium cranioplasty—a retrospective analysis of 174 patients , 2014, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[15]  Yu-hua Huang,et al.  Is timing of cranioplasty following posttraumatic craniectomy related to neurological outcome? , 2013, International journal of surgery.

[16]  N. Kitchen,et al.  Titanium cranioplasty and the prediction of complications , 2012, British journal of neurosurgery.

[17]  A. Straube,et al.  Early cranioplasty may improve outcome in neurological patients with decompressive craniectomy , 2013, Brain injury.

[18]  Volker Seifert,et al.  Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: the effect of timing on postoperative complications. , 2012, Journal of neurotrauma.

[19]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Does cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy improve consciousness? , 2011, British journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  R. Martinetti,et al.  The Efficacy of Custom-Made Porous Hydroxyapatite Prostheses for Cranioplasty: Evaluation of Postmarketing Data on 2697 Patients , 2014, Journal of applied biomaterials & functional materials.

[21]  Andrew N. Nemecek,et al.  Timing of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for trauma , 2014, Surgical neurology international.

[22]  Timm Steiner,et al.  Patient-Specific Implants Compared With Stored Bone Grafts for Patients With Interval Cranioplasty , 2014, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[23]  Philipp Scherer,et al.  Management of cranial and craniofacial bone defects with prefabricated individual titanium implants: follow-up and evaluation of 166 patients with 169 titanium implants from 1994 to 2000 , 2006, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[24]  Carmelo Anile,et al.  Cranial repair: how complicated is filling a "hole"? , 2012, Journal of neurotrauma.

[25]  T. Kauko,et al.  Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[26]  C. Oh,et al.  Comparative Study of Outcomes between Shunting after Cranioplasty and in Cranioplasty after Shunting in Large Concave Flaccid Cranial Defect with Hydrocephalus. , 2008, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[27]  M. N. Carvi y Nievas,et al.  The impact of timing of cranioplasty in patients with large cranial defects after decompressive hemicraniectomy , 2012, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[28]  R. Bentley,et al.  Custom-made titanium cranioplasty: early and late complications of 151 cranioplasties and review of the literature. , 2015, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[29]  A. Castaño-León,et al.  Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. A prospective series analyzing complications and clinical improvement. , 2015, Neurocirugia.

[30]  B. Lévy,et al.  Impact de la cranioplastie sur l’hémodynamique cérébrale comme facteur pronostic de l’amélioration clinique chez les patients craniectomisés pour traumatisme crânien grave , 2013 .

[31]  E. Juettler,et al.  Surgical Aspects of Decompression Craniectomy in Malignant Stroke: Review , 2014, Cerebrovascular Diseases.