All implants were successful. Despite the implant material used, abnormal strain distribution in the reconstructed cranium may increase the risk of fatal trauma (Laure et al. 2010) [8]. Cranial bone has an elastic modulus of 10.4 to 19.6 GPa [1] whereas unaltered PEEK has an elastic modulus of 3 to 4, which may cause the surrounding bone to break at points where the force is concentrated (e.g., at fixation screws) [9]. Ceramic (hydroxyapatite) implants fracture more easily upon impact, causing similar problems regarding brain injury [10, 11]. Porous Ti–6Al–4V has an elastic modulus of 14.5 to 38.5 GPa and deflections that are approximately half the magnitude of those of PMMA implants [1]. In addition, stresses appear within the Ti–6Al–4V implant rather than on its perimeter, as is the case with PMMA [12], providing better protection to the brain than PEEK, PMMA, or hydroxyapatite. However, there is a concern that titanium cranioplasties may obscure details of postoperative computed tomography scans. For that reason, many will prefer a polymer implant over Ti–6Al–4V for patients with intracranial tumors. This potential problem is mitigated in patients who have skull defects from trauma or infarction [13]. Furthermore, in a series of 50 custom-made titanium cranioplasties, 4 patients received postoperative MRI and 46 patients had a postoperative CT and both imaging modalities were free of artifacts and allowed assessment of adjacent bone, meninges and brain parenchyma [14].
Titanium implants with pores of 500 to 1000 μm can facilitate the incorporation of autologous stem cells obtained from iliac crest aspirate. The interconnecting pores may allow perfusion of the overlying scalp flap but may also incorporate the dura and periosteum, making revision surgery difficult.
Plates made of polymers have the advantage that their edges can be trimmed for a better fit, avoiding the need to correct the bone borders. However, placement of polymer plates near the cerebrum is a concern because of the slow release of monomers that are known to be toxic or to cause allergic reactions. To overcome this biocompatibility problem, CNC techniques are preferred over 3D printing techniques. PEEK cages have shown excellent long-term biocompatibility in orthopedic surgery [15], and infections can be treated with intravenous antibiotics without the need to remove the infected cages. However, PEEK plates are significantly more expensive than traditional PMMA plates. A material that meets all the criteria for an ideal patient-specific skull implant is not yet available.
We found that a slight decrease in the contour of the cranial vault implant facilitates tensionless closure and wound healing without compromising the patient’s appearance. In addition, tissue expansion, which is associated with significant morbidity, may be avoided. In our view, under-contouring of the patient-specific implant should always be performed.
Despite adequate implant design, postoperative asymmetry is frequently observed in patients with temporal defects because of stripping or resection of the temporalis muscle. Initially, we used a calcium–phosphate cement to reconstruct the atrophied temporalis muscle intraoperatively. However, it was difficult to estimate the degree of atrophy, and the results were inferior. Segmenting the skull based on the subdermal outline results in a more symmetric and esthetically pleasing appearance. This technique is especially useful in cases with tissue expansion.
To overcome wound closure problems, we design the temporalis replacement piece separately. It is decided intraoperatively whether placement is indicated. When indicated and technically possible, we fix the additional plate to the vault implant using microscrews. Theoretically, the narrow space between the two PEEK plates could be prone to bacterial biofilm formation, but we have not observed any infections using this technique. A way to prevent the formation of a biofilm would be to interpose galea or temporalis muscle remnants. This extra temporal implant significantly increases the cost of the procedure.
Fixation of PEEK plates to the skull was traditionally performed using conventional maxillofacial osteosynthesis material, which required the placement of screws in the skull plates. Because osteosynthesis screws can loosen when placed in polymers, the angular fixation technique (pocket hole joinery) can be used with the advantage of pulling the skull plate into the defect. Screws or pegs can be placed between the tabulas of the calvarium. We have not observed cerebral perforations with this surgical technique.
For adequate drainage of blood and cerebrospinal fluid, we advocate the use of perforated skull plates. We designed the perforations such that they can also serve as fixation points for suspension sutures of the dura on the inner side of the skull plate and fixation points for the temporalis muscle on the outer side. We believe that suspension of the dura is essential to prevent the formation of dead space under the skull plate and facilitate cerebrospinal fluid circulation and relaxation of the brain. These tenting sutures (so-called sleeper sutures) [16] are not intended to prevent epidural hematoma formation [17]. In a retrospective review of cranioplasties using PEEK implants, O’Reilly et al. [18] found that the keys to success were meticulous closure of the skin flap, excision of the scarred galea, decreasing the dead space between the dura and implant and manufacturing the PEEK implant within 2 months after the scanning procedure.