Factors Affecting Resorption Following Cranioplasty with an Autologous Bone Graft.

AIM: To evaluate the relationship between the surgical techniques, the waiting time for surgery, postoperative distance between the graft-bone margin and the percentage of bone resorption, we analyzed patients who underwent cranioplasty. Cranioplasty is a necessary surgery to preserve brain tissue and provide an appropriate microenvironment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, patients who underwent autologous bone grafting after decompressive craniectomy by the Neurosurgery Clinic of University of Health Sciences Ankara Training and Research Hospital between 2018 and 2021 were examined. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients who underwent autologous cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy were included in the study. The average expected time for cranioplasty surgery following decompressive craniectomy was 16.97±13.478 weeks (min:2 max:62 weeks). The expected time between decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty surgeries and resorption rates were compared. The resorption rate was above 30% in 7 of 10 patients with 24 weeks or more between craniectomy and cranioplasty, and less than 30% in 17 of 25 patients in surgeries less than 24 weeks (p=0.04). Following cranioplasty surgery, the distance between the graft-bone margin and the resorption rates were also compared. In this analysis, statistically significant differences were detected between the distance between the graft-bone border and the resorption rates. Resorption rates increased in 15 of 19 patients with a postcranioplasty distance of 1 mm or more (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Early cranioplasty surgery is important in order to reduce complications that may occur after craniectomy. In addition, it is important to keep the defect area small in size during craniectomy surgery and to keep the cutting edge thinner when the bone graft is taken, in order to reduce the development of bone graft resorption.

The Comparison of Autologous Bone, Methyl-Methacrylate, Porous Polyethylene, and Titanium Mesh in Cranioplasty.

AIM: To discuss four different materials that are frequently used in cranioplasty, and to reveal their advantages and disadvantages. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 85 of our cranioplasty surgeries between 2016 and 2019. Reconstruction surgeries were excluded from our study due to craniofacial trauma. RESULTS: Of the materials used in cranioplasty, 33 are autologous bone, 32 are methyl-methacrylate, 12 are porous polyethylene, and 8 are titanium mesh. Complications developed in 16 patients. Of these, 10 are infection, 3 are flap collapse, 2 are wound healing disorders, and 1 is reactive effusion complications due to the used material. The highest complication rate was 21.9% in cranioplasty with methyl-methacrylate. No major complications were observed in cranioplasty with titanium mesh. CONCLUSION: Cranioplasty, which are among the surgeries with high complications in neurosurgery, maintain their importance today. As technology is developed and cost problems are resolved, cranioplasty takes its place among the safer and standard neurosurgical operations.