Cranioplasty using patient specific implants Polyether ether ketone versus ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: A prospective study
Mariam Sk Abdelwahed,Sherif Ali,Ahmed S Kamel Abdelwahed,Mohamed M Aziz,Mohamed S Bassiouny,Mamdouh S Ahmed
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2024.08.004
2024-09-05
Abstract:This prospective study aimed to compare ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in computer-designed patient-specific implants (PSIs) for cranial defect reconstruction, in terms of complications and aesthetic outcomes. Primary or secondary cranioplasty-eligible patients were included, while patients with active infection or hydrocephalus, or unfit for general anesthesia, were excluded from the study. All the implants were designed and fabricated by the same maxillofacial surgeon using CAD/CAM technology. UHMWPE PSIs were used in group 1 and PEEK PSIs in group 2. Technically, UHMWPE could be milled to a thinner margin thickness than PEEK, which resulted in better handling properties and a smoother end finish. All patients were evaluated over a period of 6 months in terms of overall complications or implant failure as the primary outcome, according to Clavien-Dindo (CVD) grading, and cosmetic satisfaction with the aesthetic results, using a Likert scale, as the secondary outcome. In total, 22 cranioplasty patients were included, with a mean age of 30.8 years (SD = 16.3). Across both groups, 17 patients (77.3%) did not develop postoperative complications. These occurred in three patients in group 1 (CVD grade I, II, and IIIb) (27.3%) and in two patients in group 2 (CVD grade II, IIIa, and IIIb) (18.2%), with no statistical difference (p = 0.6). None of the cases in both groups developed any clinical or radiographic signs of infection, or suffered implant failure. The mean satisfaction score was 4.8 in group 1 and 4.5 in group 2 (SD = 0.6). The difference in satisfaction scores between the two was not statistically significant (p = 0.23). Although UHMWPEE was comparable to PEEK in terms of overall complication rates and cosmesis after craniectomy, UHMWPEE as a material exhibited greater resiliency in technically challenging cases with large, complex/midline-crossing designs, previously fitted meshes, or single-stage resection-reconstruction, allowing better marginal adaptation.