Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cranial reconstruction with polyetheretherketone patient-specific implant: a single-center experience

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Cranial reconstruction is a challenging procedure. The procedure aims to restore the aesthetic and function of the normal skull bone. There have been several materials ascribed to the reconstruction of the cranial vault. Among these materials is polyetheretherketon (PEEK), which is a superior biomedical polymer.

Methods

A retrospective review of all PEEK cranioplasties that were conducted in Khoula Hospital between 2017 and 2021 was performed. Fourteen patients were included in this study. Data collection included the demographics, the characteristics of the cranial defect, and the post-operative complications.

Results

Majority of the cases had a cranial defect secondary to decompressive craniectomy 78.5% (n = 11). These defects had an average size of 12 × 10 cm. There were immediate postoperative complications reported. However, 4 cases had seroma collection upon follow-up that required aspiration. In terms of the aesthetic outcome, 2 cases had temporal hollowing.

Conclusion

PEEK serves as an outstanding material for cranial reconstruction. It is associated with a relatively low complication rate. However, the design of the implant should be modified to achieve a superior aesthetic outcome and reduce temporal depression.

Level of evidence: Level IV, Therapeutic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that were generated at Khoula hospital for this study are available with the corresponding author, Khalifa Al Alawi, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, Aydin S, Sanus GZ (2011) Cranioplasty: review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2(2):162. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3159354/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022

  2. Arun Kumar KV, Singla NK, Gowda ME, Kumar D, Legha VS (2014) Current concepts in restoring acquired cranial defects. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14(Suppl 1):14. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4501989/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022

  3. Iaccarino C, Kolias AG, Roumy LG, Fountas K, Adeleye AO (2019) Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy. Front Neurol 10:1357. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7000464/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022

  4. Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S (2014) Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 36(4):E19. Available from: https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/36/4/article-pE19.xml. Accessed 26 Sept 2022

  5. Liu L, Lu ST, Liu AH, Hou WB, Cao WR, Zhou C et al (2020) Comparison of complications in cranioplasty with various materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 26];34(4):388–96. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2020.1742291

  6. Brichacek M, Antonyshyn O, Edwards G, Mainprize JG, da Costa L (2021) Decision-making in adult cranial vault reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 148(1):109E–121E. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181619/. Accessed 27 Sep 2022

  7. Sanan A, Haines SJ (1997) Repairing holes in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 40(3):588–603. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9055300/. Accessed 4 Oct 2022

  8. Alkhaibary A, Alharbi A, Alnefaie N, Aloraidi A, Khairy S (2020) Cranioplasty: a comprehensive review of the history, materials, surgical aspects, and complications. World Neurosurg 1(139):445–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Piitulainen JM, Kauko T, Aitasalo KMJ, Vuorinen V, Vallittu PK, Posti JP (2015) Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. World Neurosurg 83(5):708–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arun Kumar KV, Singla NK, Gowda ME, Kumar D, Legha VS (2014) Current concepts in restoring acquired cranial defects. The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society 14(Suppl 1):14. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4501989/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022

  11. Malcolm JG, Mahmooth Z, Rindler RS, Allen JW, Grossberg JA, Pradilla G et al (2018) Autologous cranioplasty is associated with increased reoperation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 1(116):60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clinical outcome in cranioplasty: critical review in long-term follow-up. J Craniofac Surg. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/Abstract/2003/03000/Clinical_Outcome_in_Cranioplasty__Critical_Review.3.aspx. Accessed 29 Sept 2022

  13. Park EK, Lim JY, Yun IS, Kim JS, Woo SH, Kim DS et al (2016) Cranioplasty enhanced by three-dimensional printing: custom-made three-dimensional-printed titanium implants for skull defects. J Craniofac Surg 27(4):943–949. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/Fulltext/2016/06000/Cranioplasty_Enhanced_by_Three_Dimensional.27.aspx. Accessed 29 Sept 2022

  14. Zhu S, Chen Y, Lin F, Chen Z, Jiang X, Zhang J et al (2021) Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 1(84):66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurtz SM (2019) PEEK biomaterials handbook — Google Books. Available from: https://books.google.com.om/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SimLDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=peek+for+medical+implant+history+&ots=hutGYSjQOP&sig=a65jXdWxB63sYjaEPQWBJp3OwY4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=peek%20for%20medical%20implant%20history&f=false. Accessed 30 Sept 2022

  16. Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, Bui TT, Lazareff J, Rezzadeh K et al (2017) Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 41:30–35. Available from: http://www.jocn-journal.com/article/S0967586816315375/fulltext. Accessed 30 Sept 2022

  17. Brandicourt P, Delanoé F, Roux FE, Jalbert F, Brauge D, Lauwers F (2017) Reconstruction of cranial vault defect with polyetheretherketone implants. World Neurosurg 1(105):783–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thien A, King NKK, Ang BT, Wang E, Ng I (2015) Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg 83(2):176–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andrabi S, Sarmast A, Kirmani A, Bhat A (2017) Cranioplasty: indications, procedures, and outcome — an institutional experience. Surg Neurol Int 8(1). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5461575/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022

  20. Mee H, Anwar F, Timofeev I, Owens N, Grieve K, Whiting G et al (2022) Cranioplasty: a multidisciplinary approach. Front Surg 17(9):531

    Google Scholar 

  21. Makiuchi Y, Ozaki M, Iwashina Y, Oshima N, Akagi K (2022) Tissue expander repositioning for wound dehiscence in scalp expanded prior to cranioplasty case report. Int J Surg Wound Care 3(2):50–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rubio EJ dos S, Bos EM, Dammers R, Koudstaal MJ, Dumans AG (2016) Two-stage cranioplasty: tissue expansion directly over the craniectomy defect prior to cranioplasty. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 9(4):355. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC5101123/. Accessed 19 Oct 2022

  23. Carloni R, Hersant B, Bosc R, le Guerinel C, Meningaud JP (2015) Soft tissue expansion and cranioplasty: For which indications? J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 43(8):1409–1415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, Bui TT, Lazareff J, Rezzadeh K et al (2017) Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 41:30–35. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28377284/. Accessed 19 Oct 2022

  25. Amendola F, Vaienti L, Carbonaro R, Nataloni A, Barbanera A, Zingaretti N et al (2022) The antibiotic immersion of custom-made porous hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: a multicentric cohort study. J Craniofac Surg 33(5):1464–1468. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/Fulltext/2022/07000/The_Antibiotic_Immersion_of_Custom_Made_Porous.46.aspx. Accessed 26 Oct 2022

  26. Frassanito P, Fraschetti F, Bianchi F, Giovannenze F, Caldarelli M, Scoppettuolo G (2019) Management and prevention of cranioplasty infections. Child’s Nervous System 35(9):1499–506. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04251-8. Accessed 26 Oct 2022

  27. Paredes I, Lagares A, San-Juan R, Castaño-León AM, Gómez PA, Jimenez-Roldán L et al (2020) Reduction in the infection rate of cranioplasty with a tailored antibiotic prophylaxis: a nonrandomized study. Acta Neurochir 162(11):2857–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04508-1. Accessed 26 Oct 2022

  28. Wolff A, Santiago GF, Belzberg M, Huggins C, Lim M, Weingart J et al (2018) Adult cranioplasty reconstruction with customized cranial implants: preferred technique, timing, and biomaterials. J Craniofac Surg 29(4):887–894. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/Fulltext/2018/06000/Adult_Cranioplasty_Reconstruction_With_Customized.19.aspx. Accessed 26 Oct 2022

Download references

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Khoula Hospital, Mina Al Fahal, Muscat, Oman

    Khalifa Al Alawi , Moath Shummo, Mohudoom Meera Sahib & Taimoor Al Balushi

  2. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Sultan Al Shaqsi

Authors
  1. Khalifa Al Alawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sultan Al Shaqsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moath Shummo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohudoom Meera Sahib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Taimoor Al Balushi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khalifa Al Alawi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Khoula Hospital Ethical Board (REC 09/2022). This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Patient Consent

Patients have signed a written consent to share their data and use their photos in the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Khalifa Al Alawi, Sultan Al Shaqsi, Moath Shummo, Mohudoom Meera Sahib, and Taimoor Al Balushi declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Alawi , K., Al Shaqsi, S., Shummo, M. et al. Cranial reconstruction with polyetheretherketone patient-specific implant: a single-center experience. Eur J Plast Surg 46, 953–959 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-023-02083-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-023-02083-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation