Titanium Mesh Implants - Alternative for Cranial Bone Defects

Abstract:

Calvarial bone defects are due to cranial bone removal at the end of the surgery (decompressive craniectomy), either because of bone involvement of the tumor or as a method to relieve intracranial pressure caused by important cerebral edema secondary to large tumors or traumas. With the progress of biomedical technology, new materials are available for use by surgeons. The titanium mesh implant is a plating platform with a matrix design and MRI compatibility that can be easily shaped, cut, and bent by the surgeon according to the bone defect. It is locked in place by several screws tapped into the bone. Although may different type of materials are currently available there is no consensus for the best method to be used. The aim of this study was to report our experience with titanium mesh implants for cranial repair and reconstruction of bone anatomy.Twenty four patients with decompressive craniectomies that required reconstruction of the calvarial bone defect for which a titanium mesh cranioplasty was used, operated in our Neurosurgery Department between January 2013 and April 2016 where included in this retrospective study. Of the 24 patients, only one had a localized infection complication for which the patient was re-operated and the implant removed with no other complications. No other neurological, infectious and functional complications were observed during or after surgery. All other patients had excellent anatomic and functional results with a positive feedback for the aesthetic aspects of the implant. The use of these bio-compatible materials is a viable, safe and reliable solution for the management of cranial bone defects offering the surgeon a large array of options for the benefit of the patient. It has a proven cost-effectiveness when compared to other customized prosthetics with the same outcomes. The MRI compatibility was proven very useful, especially for neoplasm patients who required frequent cranial imaging follow-ups, and reduced operating time was particularly beneficial to elderly patients.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 752)
• Pages: 105-110
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.752.105
• Online since: August 2017
• Authors: Dan Mihai Teleanu*, Alexandru Cristescu, Stefan Bogaciu, Raluca Ioana Teleanu, Alexandru Vlad Ciurea
• Keywords: Bone Defects, Cranioplasty, Decompressive Craniectomy, Implant, Titanium Mesh

References

[1] Aatman M. Shah, B.S. Henry Jung, Stephen Skirboll: Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis, Neurosurg Focus 36 (4) (2014) E19.

DOI: 10.3171/2014.2.focus13561

[2] Leonard I Malis: Titanium Mesh and Acrylic Cranioplasty, Neurosurgery 25 (1989) 351 – 355.

DOI: 10.1227/00006123-198909000-00005

[3] JianMing Luo, Bin Liu, ZeYu Xie, Shan Ding, Zerui Zhuan, Lan Lin, YanChun Guo, Hui Chen, XiaoJun Yu: Comparison of manually shaped and computer-shaped titanium mesh for repairing large frontotemporoparietal skull defects after traumatic brain injury; Neurosurg Focus 33 (1) (2012).

DOI: 10.3171/2012.2.focus129

[4] Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, Takanashi S, Miyawaki S, Nakashima M, et al: Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. ActaNeurochir 148 (2006) 535–540.

DOI: 10.1007/s00701-006-0740-6

[5] R. B. Vitala, P. T. Hamamoto Filhod, R. L. Lapated,V. Z. Martinsb, F. de Oliveira Limac, F. R. Romerod, M. A. Zanini – Calvarial ectopic meningothelial meningioma, International Journal of Surgery Case Reports, 10 (2015) 69-72.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.03.033

[6] Bowers CA, Riva-Cambrin J, Hertzler DA II, Walker ML: Risk factors and rates of bone flap resorption in pediatric patients after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. Clinical article. JNeurosurgPediatr 11 (2013) 526–532.

DOI: 10.3171/2013.1.peds12483

[7] Lethaus B, Safi Y, ter Laak-Poort M, Kloss-Brandstätter A, Banki F, Robbenmenke C, et al: Cranioplasty with customized titanium and PEEK implants in a mechanical stress model. J Neurotrauma 29 (2012) 1077–1083.

DOI: 10.1089/neu.2011.1794

[8] Sanan A, Haines SJ: Repairing holes in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 40 (1997) 588–603.

DOI: 10.1227/00006123-199703000-00033

[9] Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, Takanashi S, Miyawaki S, Nakashima M, et al: Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. ActaNeurochir 148 (2006) 535–540.

DOI: 10.1007/s00701-006-0740-6

[10] Dujovny M, Aviles A, Agner C, Fernandez P, Charbel FT: Cranioplasty: cosmetic or therapeutic? SurgNeurol 47 (1997) 238– 241.

DOI: 10.1016/s0090-3019(96)00013-4

[11] Cabraja M, Klein M, Lehmann TN: Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects. Neurosurg Focus 26(6) (2009) E10.

DOI: 10.3171/2009.3.focus091

[12] Grant GA, Jolley M, Ellenbogen RG, Roberts TS, Gruss JR, Loeser JD: Failure of autologous bone-assisted cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in children and adolescents. J Neurosurg 100(2SupplPediatrics) (2004) 163–168.

DOI: 10.3171/ped.2004.100.2.0163

[13] Chandler CL, Uttley D, Archer DJ, MacVicar D: Imaging after titanium cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg 8 (1994) 409–414.

DOI: 10.3109/02688699408995107

[14] Gladstone HB, McDermott MW, Cooke DD: Implants for cranioplasty. OtolaryngolClinNorthAm 28 (1995) 381–400.

[15] Joffe J, Harris M, Kahugu F, Nicoll S, Linney A, Richards R: A prospective study of computer-aided design and manufacture of titanium plate for cranioplasty and its clinical outcome. Br J Neurosurg 13 (1999) 576–580.

DOI: 10.1080/02688699943088

[16] Joffe JM, McDermott PJ, Linney AD, Mosse CA, Harris M: Computer-generated titanium cranioplasty: report of a new technique for repairing skull defects. Br J Neurosurg 6 (1992) 343– 350.

DOI: 10.3109/02688699209023793

[17] I.P. Janecka, New reconstructive technologies in skull base surgery: role of titanium mesh and porous polyethylene, Arch Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, 126 (2000) 396–401.

DOI: 10.1001/archotol.126.3.396

[18] F. Servadei, C. Iaccarino, The Therapeutic  Cranioplasty Still  Needs an Ideal Material and Surgical Timing, World Neurosurgery, 83(2) (2015) 133-135.

DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.08.031

[19] S.P. Ban, Y.J. Son, H.J. Yang, Y.S. Chung, S.H. Lee, D.H. Han, Analysis of Complications Following Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Brain Injury, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 48(3) (2010) 244-250.

DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2010.48.3.244