Assessment of Cranioplasty using Titanium mesh vs. Hydroxyapatite cement | ||||
| Minia Journal of Medical Research | ||||
| Article 53, Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2019, Page 336-340 PDF (313.21 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjmr.2022.221753 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Medhat M. EL-Sawy; Mohab M. Nageeb; Waleed Z. Nanous; Mohamed A. Abdel El Fattah | ||||
| Department of Neurology, El-Minia Faculty of Medicine | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Cranioplasty is a reconstructive procedure used to restore skull anatomy and repair skull defects. The most common causes leading to calvarial skull defects include: depressed fractures of the skull, decompressive craniectomies (DC), tumor infiltration of calvarial bones, congenital deformities and inflammatory lesions.(1) Aim of the work: The aim of the work is to compare the outcome of two different manufacturing processes in reconstruction of calvarial skull defects using Titanium mesh versus Hydroxyapatite bone cement with assessment of cosmetic, functional outcome and incidence of complications in both study groups. Patients and Methods: Study participants: This is a prospective comparative study on first successive forty patients from December 2017 to December 2018 with calvarial skull defects of different etiologies, sites and sizes. Patients have been admitted and operated in neurosurgery department, Minia university hospital. Results: This study included 40 patients with skull defects treated with cranioplasty. We divided patients into 2 groups, Group1: 20 patients were operated upon by cranioplasty using Titanium mesh and Group 2: 20 patients were operated upon by cranioplasty using HA bone cement implants. Discussion: Cranioplasty is a reconstructive procedure used to restore skull anatomy and repair skull defects. Optimal skull reconstruction is a challenge for neurosurgeons, and the strategy used to achieve the best result remains a topic of debate. Conclusions: Regarding cosmetic appearance, functional outcome and improvement of the clinical symptoms (syndrome of trephined), Cranioplasty using Titanium mesh and HA bone cement proved to have non-significant difference between both techniques in the reconstruction of calvarial skull defects despite their different etiologies. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| CT : Computed Tomography; DC: Decompressive Craniectomy; HA: Hydroxyapatite | ||||
|
Supplementary Files
|
||||
|
Statistics Article View: 46 PDF Download: 238 |
||||
