Use of Methyl Methacrylate for Small and Large Cranial Defects: A Single Institute Experience

Ziya Asan

doi:10.5152/EurJTher.2018.479

Authors

Ziya Asan Department of Neurosurgery, Ahi Evran University, School of Medicine, Kırşehir https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8468-9156

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5152/EurJTher.2018.479

Keywords:

Cranioplasty, methyl methacrylate, calvarium, cranium, cosmetic

Abstract

Objective: Data obtained from cases wherein methyl methacrylate was used for cranioplasty are discussed along with the literature, and methods for preventing potential complications are presented.

Methods: Records of patients who had been operated for cranioplasty between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Early and late results of the cases were recorded. Area measurements of cranium defects were performed through computed tomography, scanography, or direct X-ray. The steps considered for preventing known complications are explained, and the results are discussed.

Results: Cranioplasty with methyl methacrylate was administered to areas <10 cm2 in 29 cases, areas of 10–25 cm2 in 25 cases, and areas >25 cm2 in 10 cases. Cranioplasty with methyl methacrylate was performed in the supratentorial area in 57 cases and in the infratentorial area in 7 cases. In 48 cases, partial cranioplasty was performed by administering methyl methacrylate along with autograft to the craniectomy defect. A subcutaneous drain was left for 2–3 days in all cases. During this period, dual antibiotherapy was administered. Symptoms of infection were not encountered in any case. No clinical symptoms associated with cranioplasty material were discovered in the late follow-up period.

Conclusion: When methyl methacrylate is applied with appropriate methods and necessary precautions are taken, it proves as an inexpensive and effective cranioplasty material that can successfully be applied in large cranial defects, which reduces the risk of infection. This inexpensive material can be applied to repair partial craniotomy flap deformities to achieve better cosmetic outcomes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Marchac D, Greensmith A. Long-term experience with methylmethacrylate cranioplasty in craniofacial surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61: 744-52.

Andrabi SM, Sarmast AH, Kirmani AR, Bhat AR. Cranioplasty: Indications, procedures, and outcome-An institutional experience. Surg Neurol Int 2017; 8: 91.

Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, Aydin S, Sanus GZ. Cranioplasty: Review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2011; 2: 162-7.

Khader BA, Towler MR. Materials and techniques used in cranioplasty fixation: A Review. Master Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016; 66: 315- 22.

Ernst G, Qeadan F, Carlson AP. Subcutaneous bone flap storage after emergency craniectomy: cost-effectiveness and rate of resorption 2018; 5: 1-7.

Edwards MS, Outhershout OK. Autogenic skull bone grafts o reconstructed large or complex skull defects in children and adolescent. Neurosurgery 1987; 20: 273-80.

Hammon WM, Kempe LG. Methylmetacrylate cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir 1971; 25: 69-77.

Kaneshiro Y, Murata K, Yamauchi S, Urano Y. Fatal cerebral swelling immediately after cranioplasty: A case report. Surg Neurol Int 2017; 8: 156.

Maugeri R, Giammalva RG, Graziano F, Basile L, Gulì C, Giugno A, et al. Never say never again: A bone graft infection due to a hornet sting, thirty-nine years after cranioplasty. Surg Neurol Int 2017; 8: 189.

Ma IT, Symon MR, Bristol RE, Beals SP, Joganic EF, Adelson PD, et al. Outcomes of Titanium Mesh Cranioplasty in Pediatric Patients. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29: 99-104.

Kato A, Morishima H, Nagashima G, Unexpected complications immediately after cranioplasty. Acute Med Surg 2017; 4: 316-21.

Frassanito P, Tamburrini G, Massimi L, Peraio S, Caldarelli M, Di Rocco C. Problems of reconstructive cranioplasty after traumatic brain injury in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2017; 33: 1759-68.

Han SE, Lim SY, Pyon JK, Mun GH, Bang SI, Oh KS. Aesthetic refinement of secondary cranioplasty using methyl methacrylate bone cements. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37: 592-600.

Ergin N, Kadioglu HH. KraniyaI Kemik Defektlerinin Onariminda Akrilik, Otolog ve Homolog Kemik Greftlerin Kullanimi. Türk Nöroşir Derg 1996; 6: 24-7.

Temiz C, Tehli O, Kural C, Solmaz I, Gumral R, Bedir O, et al. Comparison of the Efficacies of Methyl Methacrylate, Bioactive Ceramic and Bioactive Glass on the Prevention of Cranioplasty Infections: An In Vitro Laboratory Study. Turkiye Klinikleri J Neur 2014; 9: 93-9.

Shibahashi K, Hoda H, Takasu Y, Hanakawa K, Ide T, Hamabe Y. Cranioplasty Outcomes and Analysis of the Factors Influencing Surgical Site Infection: A Retrospective Review of More than 10 Years of Institutional Experience. World Neurosurg 2017; 101: 20-2.

Kehler U, Hirdes C, Weber C, Spuck S, Tronnier V, Kundt G, et al. CSF leaks after cranial surgery - a prospective multicenter analysis. Innovative Neurosurgery 2013; 1: 49-53.

Wang JC, Wei L, Xu J, Liu JF, Gui L. Clinical outcome of cranioplasty with high-density porous polyethylene. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23:1404-6.