Purpose: Today's surgeon faces many situations that ...



Long-term Results of Craniofacial Implantation: A Return to Methylmethacrylate

Anil Shetty, MD; Gustavo Bello-Rojas, M.D.; Matthew Rontal, MD and

Ian T. Jackson, MD, DSc (Hon) FRCS, FACS, FRACS (Hon)

Introduction: Today's surgeon faces many situations that require the reconstruction of bony defects of the cranial vault. Autologous bone is the traditional material used in these situations. They have low rates of extrusion and infection. However, autologous bone grafting has drawbacks such as donor site morbidity, longer operation times and increased resorption rates of the graft. Alloplastic materials for autologous bone are an appealing alternative. They are available in nearly unlimited supply and obviate donor site morbidity. One of the earliest alloplastic materials used in cranioplasty was Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a malleable and inert implant material. More recently, biocompatible cements such as Hydroxyapatite cement (HAC) have gained acceptance. Our unsatisfactory experience with HAC has led us to return to PMMA in craniofacial reconstruction with excellent cosmetic and functional results as well as a low incidence of complications.

Method: The Patients were evaluated and followed in the same Institute. The senior surgeon performed all procedures. The data presented is derived from a retrospective review of patient charts.

Results: Thirty patients, treated at the Institute for Craniofacial and Reconstructive Surgery, Southfield, Michigan, between the years 2000 and 2006, were included in the study. The mean postoperative follow-up was 2.1 years. Sixteen patients had full-thickness cranial defects, while the rest had partial-thickness defects. The etiology of the defects included trauma, congenital hypoplasia and tumor resection.

Etiology of Skull defects: Post-Traumatic Deformity – 12; Congenital Deformity –7; Tumor Resection – 9; other -2

Full-Thickness 16 Partial-Thickness 14

Table 1. Demographic Information

|Patients |N |% |Mean |Range |

|Male |20 |66.7 | |  |

|Female |10 |32.3 | |  |

|55 years |4 |71 |71 |61 to 81 |

|Follow Up |31 |100 |2.1y |.8yr- 4yr |

Only one case was complicated by infection requiring removal of the implant. Three minor complications were encountered- exposure of implant material, hematoma, and seroma. These were successfully treated with secondary closure of minor implant exposure and expectant management of fluid collections.

Conclusion: Based on our series of 30 patients over an average follow-up of 2.1 years, PMMA is a safe and effective option for craniofacial reconstruction. PMMA may be used to create a reliable reconstruction comprised of an easily molded and biologically inert material. PMMA should not be used in tissues that have been infected within the past year, or in sites that communicate with the Paranasal sinuses. Graft immobilization via screw fixation in both full-thickness and partial thickness defects not only increases the stability of the reconstruction but also contributes to a reduced rate of peri-implant infection. Finally, it is probable that impregnation of the cement with Tobramycin has also contributed to a decline in infectious complications

References:

1. Gosain AK. Biomaterials for reconstruction of the cranial vault. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005: 116: 663-6.

2. Cho YR, Gosain AK. Biomaterials in craniofacial reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2004: 31: 377-85, v.

3. Manson PN, Crawley WA, Hoopes JE. Frontal cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of cranial vault reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986: 77: 888-904.

4. Gladstone HB, McDermott MW, Cooke DD. Implants for cranioplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995: 28: 381-400.

5. Wilson J, Merwin GE. Biomaterials for facial bone augmentation: comparative studies. J Biomed Mater Res 1988: 22: 159-77.

6. Homsy CA. Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials for facial aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998: 102: 1766-8.

7. Rubin JP, Yaremchuk MJ. Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997: 100: 1336-53.

8. Toriumi DM, Robertson K. Bone inductive biomaterials in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1993: 9: 29-36.

9. Costantino PD, Friedman CD, Lane A. Synthetic biomaterials in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1993: 9: 1-15.

10. Maas CS, Merwin GE, Wilson J, Frey MD, Maves MD. Comparison of biomaterials for facial bone augmentation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990: 116: 551-6.

11. Homsy CA. Biomaterials for facial bone augmentation: comparative studies. J Biomed Mater Res 1988: 22: 351-6.

12. Munro IR, Guyuron B. Split-rib cranioplasty. Ann Plast Surg 1981: 7: 341-6.

13. Moreira-Gonzalez A, Jackson IT, Miyawaki T, Barakat K, DiNick V. Clinical outcome in cranioplasty: critical review in long-term follow-up. J Craniofac Surg 2003: 14: 144-53.

14. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA. The use of bone grafts and alloplastic materials in cranioplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991: 270-8.

15. Gurdjian ES WJ, Brown JC. Impression technique of reconstruction of large skull defects. Surgery 1943: 14: 878-81.

16. Sanan A, Haines SJ. Repairing holes in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 1997: 40: 588-603.

17. Jackson IT, Yavuzer R. Hydroxyapatite cement: an alternative for craniofacial skeletal contour refinements. Br J Plast Surg 2000: 53: 24-9.

18. Zins JE, Turegun MC, Hosn W, Bauer TW. Reconstruction of intraosseous hemangiomas of the midface using split calvarial bone grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006: 117: 948-53; discussion 54.

19. Matic DB, Manson PN. Biomechanical analysis of hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2004: 15: 415-22; discussion 22-3.

20. Eppley BL. Discussion. J Craniofac Surg 2004: 15: 422-23.

21. Gibbons KJ, Hicks WL, Jr., Guterman LR. A technique for rigid fixation of methyl methacrylate cranioplasty: the vault-locking method. Surg Neurol 1999: 52: 310-4; discussion 14-5.

22. Replogle RE, Lanzino G, Francel P, et al. Acrylic cranioplasty using miniplate struts. Neurosurgery 1996: 39: 747-9.

23. Buchholz HW, Elson RA, Engelbrecht E, et al. Management of deep infection of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981: 63-B: 342-53.

24. Lindberg L, Onnerfalt R, Dingeldein E, Wahlig H. The release of gentamicin after total hip replacement using low or high viscosity bone cement. A prospective, randomized study. Int Orthop 1991: 15: 305-9.

25. Carlsson AS, Nilsson JA, Blomgren G, et al. Low- vs high-viscosity cement in hip arthroplasty. No radiographic difference in 226 arthrosis cases followed for 5 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1993: 64: 257-62.

26. Joseph TN, Chen AL, Di Cesare PE. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003: 11: 38-47.

27. Carlsson AS, Josefsson G, Lindberg L. Revision with gentamicin-impregnated cement for deep infections in total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978: 60: 1059-64.

28. Blum KS, Schneider SJ, Rosenthal AD. Methyl methacrylate cranioplasty in children: long-term results. Pediatr Neurosurg 1997: 26: 33-5.

29. Liu JK, Gottfried ON, Cole CD, Dougherty WR, Couldwell WT. Porous polyethylene implant for cranioplasty and skull base reconstruction. Neurosurg Focus 2004: 16: ECP1.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download