Hydroxyapatite ceramic implants for cranioplasty in children: a retrospective evaluation of clinical outcome and osteointegration

  • Pietro SpennatoEmail author
  • Valentina Canella
  • Ferdinado Aliberti
  • Carmela Russo
  • Claudio Ruggiero
  • Angelo Nataloni
  • Milena Lombardo
  • Giuseppe Cinalli
Original Article



Cranioplasty in children is a controversial and challenging issue, since there is still no consensus on the ideal material. Main problems in paediatric age are represented by the child’s growing skull, the lower bone thickness and the high incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) disorders or brain swelling. Autologous bone is still considered the “gold standard”. When it is not available, a wide range of alloplastic materials have been proposed. Hydroxyapatite, a ceramic-based derivative, bears a chemical composition very similar to the human natural bone, making this material a valuable alternative to other cranioplasty solutions.


All patients implanted with a custom-made porous hydroxyapatite device at Santobono-Pausilipon Hospital in Naples were retrospectively reviewed. A follow-up CT scan of the skull was performed from 1 up to 48 months postoperatively to document the bone ingrowth as well as the osteointegration process. The bone density was measured as according to the Hounsfield scale at the bone-implant interface.


Between 2014 and 2018, 11 patients (7 males, 4 females) underwent cranioplasty with hydroxyapatite ceramic implants (HAP). Patients’ age ranged between 3 and 16 years old. Initial aetiology was trauma in most cases. Two subjects were implanted with HAP as primary cranioplasty, 9 as revision surgery following previous cranioplasty failure. Sites of the cranial defect were unilateral fronto-temporo-parietal (N = 8), unilateral frontal (N = 1) and bifrontal (N = 2). Two patients with large bilateral defects received two prostheses. In one of these, the two prostheses were explanted and replaced with two back-up implants (accounting for a total of 15 implants in 11 patients). Osteointegration was measurable for 12 out of 15 implanted devices. The mean percentage was about 51%. There were six asymptomatic prosthesis fractures (40%), all occurring within 6 months from implant. In one case, the bifrontal prostheses were explanted and replaced. This was the only patient who underwent revision surgery.


Hydroxyapatite ceramic implants represent a valid alternative to other cranioplasty solutions. Where coaptation occurs correctly, with good osteointegration, implant mechanical resistance increases over time.


Bioceramics Biomimetic Cranioplasty Custom-made prosthesis Hydroxyapatite 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Angelo Nataloni and Valentina Canella are full-time employees at Clinical Department of Finceramica Faenza S.p.A. (Faenza, Italy).


  1. 1.
    Alexiou GA, Sfakianos G, Prodromou N (2011) Pediatric head trauma. J Emerg Trauma Shock 4:403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beuriat PA, Szathmari A, Grassiot B, Di Rocco F, Mottolese C (2016) Why a hydroxyapatite cranioplasty can be used to repair a cranial bone defect in children: experience of 19 cases. Neurochirurgie 62:251–257. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowers CA, Riva-Cambrin J, Hertzler DA, Walker ML (2013) Risk factors and rates of bone flap resorption in pediatric patients after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 11:526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Oliveira RS, Brigato R, Madureira JF, Cruz AA, de Mello Filho FV, Alonso N, Machado HR (2007) Reconstruction of a large complex skull defect in a child: a case report and literature review. Childs Nerv Syst 23:1097–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Della Puppa A, Mottaran R, Scienza R (2010) Image-guided cranial osteoma resection and bioceramic porous hydroxyapatite custom-made reconstruction in a one-step surgical procedure. Technical notes and illustrative case. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fong KD, Warren SM, Loboa EG, Henderson JH, Fang TD, Cowan CM, Carter DR, Longaker MT (2003) Mechanical strain affects dura mater biological processes: implications for immature calvarial healing. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1312–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frassanito P, De Bonis P, Mattogno PP, Mangiola A, Novello M, Brinchi D, Pompucci A, Anile C (2013) The fate of a macroporous hydroxyapatite cranioplasty four years after implantation: macroscopical and microscopical findings in a case of recurrent atypical meningioma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 115:1496–1498. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frassanito P, Massimi L, Caldarelli M, Tamburrini G, Di Rocco C (2014) Bone flap resorption in infants. J Neurosurg Pediatr 13:243–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frassanito P, Tamburrini G, Massimi L, Di Rocco C, Nataloni A, Fabbri G, Caldarelli M (2015) Post-marketing surveillance of CustomBone service implanted in children under 7 years old. Acta Neurochir 157:115–121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frassanito P, Tamburrini G, Massimi L, Peraio S, Caldarelli M, Di Rocco C (2017) Problems of reconstructive cranioplasty after traumatic brain injury in children. Childs Nerv Syst 33:1759–1768. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frassanito P, Massimi L, Tamburrini G, Bianchi F, Nataloni A, Canella V, Caldarelli M (2018) Custom-made hydroxyapatite for cranial repair in a specific pediatric age group (7-13 years old): a multicenter post-marketing surveillance study. Childs Nerv Syst 34:2283–2289. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frassanito P, Bianchi F, Pennisi G, Massimi L, Tamburrini G, Caldarelli M (2019) The growth of the neurocranium: literature review and implications in cranial repair. Childs Nerv Syst 35:1459–1465. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frassanito P, Bianchi F, Stifano V, Fraschetti F, Massimi L, Tamburrini G, Caldarelli M (2019) Craniocerebral disproportion after decompressive craniectomy in infants: the hidden enemy of cranial repair? Childs Nerv Syst 35:1467–1471. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fricia N, Cebula T, Nannavecchia B, Morselli C, Chibbaro S (2019) Cranioplasty with porous hydroxyapatite custom-made bone flap: results from a multi-Centre study enrolling 149 patients over 15 years. World Neurosurg 121:160–165. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goiato MC, Anchieta RB, Pita MS, dos Santos DM (2009) Reconstruction of skull defects: currently available materials. J Craniofac Surg 20:1512–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grant GA, Jolley M, Ellenbogen RG, Roberts TS, Gruss JR, Loeser JD (2004) Failure of autologous bone—assisted cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in children and adolescents. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 100:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hardy H, Tollard E, Derrey S, Delcampe P, Péron JM, Fréger P, Proust F (2002) Clinical and ossification outcome of custom-made hydroxyapatite prothese for large skull defect. Neurochirurgie. 58:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iaccarino C, Viaroli E, Fricia M, Serchi E, Poli T, Servadei F (2015) Preliminary results of a prospective study on methods of cranial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:2375–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaberi J, Gambrell K, Tiwana P, Madden C, Finn R (2013) Long-term clinical outcome analysis of poly-methyl-methacrylate cranioplasty for large skull defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:e81–e88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jennett B, Snoek J, Bond MR, Brooks N (1981) Disability after severe head injury: observations on the use of the Glasgow outcome scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 44:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Josan VA, Sgouros S, Walsh AR, Dover MS, Nishikawa H, Hockley AD (2005) Cranioplasty in children. Childs Nerv Syst 21:200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kabbani H, Raghuveer TS (2004) Craniosynostosis. Am Fam Physician 69:2863–2870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klieverik VM, Miller KJ, Singhal A, Han KS, Woerdeman PA (2019) Cranioplasty after craniectomy in pediatric patients-a systematic review. Childs Nerv Syst 35:1481–1490. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lam S, Kuether J, Fong A, Reid R (2015) Cranioplasty for large-sized Calvarial defects in the pediatric population: a review. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 8:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee S-C, Wu C-T, Lee S-T, Chen P-J (2009) Cranioplasty using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. J Clin Neurosci 16:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindner D, Schlothofer-Schumann K, Kern BC, Marx O, Müns A, Meixensberger J (2017) Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical trial. J Neurosurg 126:175–183. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin KD, Franz B, Kirsch M, Polanski W, von der Hagen M, Schackert G, Sobottka SB (2014) Autologous bone flap cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is combined with a high complication rate in pediatric traumatic brain injury patients. Acta Neurochir 156:813–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martini L, Staffa G, Giavaresi G, Salamanna F, Parrilli A, Serchi E, Pressato D, Arcangeli E, Fini M (2012) Long-term results following cranial hydroxyapatite prosthesis implantation in a large skull defect model. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:625e–635eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morice A, Kolb F, Picard A, Kadlub N, Puget S (2017) Reconstruction of a large calvarial traumatic defect using a custom-made porous hydroxyapatite implant covered by a free latissimus dorsi muscle flap in an 11-year-old patient. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 19:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piedra MP, Thompson EM, Selden NR, Ragel BT, Guillaume DJ (2012) Optimal timing of autologous cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 10:268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rocque BG, Amancherla K, Lew SM, Lam S (2013) Outcomes of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in the pediatric population. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 12:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Staffa G, Nataloni A, Compagnone C, Servadei F (2007) Custom made cranioplasty prostheses in porous hydroxy-apatite using 3D design techniques: 7 years experience in 25 patients. Acta Neurochir 149:161–170 discussion 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Staffa G, Barbanera A, Faiola A, Fricia M, Limoni P, Mottaran R, Zanotti B, Stefini R (2012) Custom made bioceramic implants in complex and large cranial reconstruction: a two-year follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:e65–e70. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stefini R, Esposito G, Zanotti B, Iaccarino C, Fontanella MM, Servadei F (2013) Use of ‘custom made’ porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis of complications in 1549 patients. Surg Neurol Int 4:12. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stefini R, Zanotti B, Nataloni A, Martinetti R, Scafuto M, Colasurdo M, Tampieri A (2015) The efficacy of custom-made porous hydroxyapatite prostheses for cranioplasty: evaluation of postmarketing data on 2697 patients. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 13:e136–e144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tubbs RS, Bosmia AN, Cohen-Gadol AA (2012) The human calvaria: a review of embryology, anatomy, pathology, and molecular development. Childs Nerv Syst 28:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams L, Fan K, Bentley R (2016) Titanium cranioplasty in children and adolescents. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 44:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zaccaria L, Tharakan SJ, Altermatt S (2017) Hydroxyapatite ceramic implants for cranioplasty in children: a single-center experience. Childs Nerv Syst 33:343–348. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery Santobono-Pausipilon children’s hospitalNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Finceramica Faenza S.p.A., FaenzaRavennaItaly
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologySantobono-Pausilipon Children’s HospitalNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations