Advertisement

Letter to the Editor: Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      We read with great interest the recently published article titled “Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis” by Zhu et al. [
      • Zhu S.
      • Chen Y.
      • Lin F.
      • Chen Z.
      • Jiang X.
      • Zhang J.
      • et al.
      Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
      ]. In this review, the authors perform a meta-analysis to assess the relative risks of various complications in titanium allografts versus all other materials. While we applaud the efforts of the authors in conducting this analysis, we noticed some flaws in the data synthesis and analysis.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Zhu S.
        • Chen Y.
        • Lin F.
        • Chen Z.
        • Jiang X.
        • Zhang J.
        • et al.
        Complications following titanium cranioplasty compared with nontitanium implants cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Clin Neurosci. 2021; 84: 66-74https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.12.009
        • Malcolm J.G.
        • Mahmooth Z.
        • Rindler R.S.
        • Allen J.W.
        • Grossberg J.A.
        • Pradilla G.
        • et al.
        Autologous cranioplasty is associated with increased reoperation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        World Neurosurg. 2018; 116: 60-68https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.009
        • van de Vijfeijken S.E.C.M.
        • Münker T.J.A.G.
        • Spijker R.
        • Karssemakers L.H.E.
        • Vandertop W.P.
        • Becking A.G.
        • et al.
        Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties: safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review.
        World Neurosurg. 2018; 117 (443-452.e8)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.193
      1. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane; 2020.

        • Al-Tamimi Y.Z.
        • Sinha P.
        • Trivedi M.
        • Robson C.
        • Al-Musawi T.A.
        • Hossain N.
        • et al.
        Comparison of acrylic and titanium cranioplasty.
        Br J Neurosurg. 2012; 26: 510-513https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2011.633640
        • Rosinski C.L.
        • Patel S.
        • Geever B.
        • Chiu R.G.
        • Chaker A.N.
        • Zakrzewski J.
        • et al.
        A retrospective comparative analysis of titanium mesh and custom implants for cranioplasty.
        Neurosurgery. 2020; 86: E15-E22https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz358
        • Corliss B.
        • Gooldy T.
        • Vaziri S.
        • Kubilis P.
        • Murad G.
        • Fargen K.
        Complications after in vivo and ex vivo autologous bone flap storage for cranioplasty: a comparative analysis of the literature.
        World Neurosurg. 2016; 96: 510-515https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.09.025
        • 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: 20-25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.106
        • Zhang Q.
        • Yuan Y.
        • Li X.
        • Sun T.
        • Zhou Y.
        • Yu H.
        • et al.
        A large multicenter retrospective research on embedded cranioplasty and covered cranioplasty.
        World Neurosurg. 2018; 112: e645-e651https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.114
        • Ng Z.Y.
        • Ang W.J.J.
        • Nawaz I.
        Computer-designed polyetheretherketone implants versus titanium mesh (±acrylic cement) in alloplastic cranioplasty: A retrospective single-surgeon, single-center study.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000623
        • Kim J.K.
        • Lee S.B.
        • Yang S.Y.
        Cranioplasty using autologous bone versus porous polyethylene versus custom-made titanium mesh: a retrospective review of 108 patients.
        J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2018; 61: 737-746https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0047
      2. Kim J, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kwon T-H, Roh H. Outcomes of cranioplasty using autologous bone or 3d-customized titanium mesh follow-ing decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: differences in complications. J Trauma Inj 2019;32:202–9. 10.20408/jti.2019.033.

        • Höhne J.
        • Werzmirzowsky K.
        • Ott C.
        • Hohenberger C.
        • Hassanin B.G.
        • Brawanski A.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of cranioplasty with preformed titanium versus freehand molded polymethylmethacrylate implants.
        J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018; 79: 200-205https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604362
        • Yeap M.C.
        • Tu P.H.
        • Liu Z.H.
        • Hsieh P.C.
        • Liu Y.T.
        • Lee C.Y.
        • et al.
        Long-Term complications of cranioplasty using stored autologous bone graft, three-dimensional polymethyl methacrylate, or titanium mesh after decompressive craniectomy: a single-center experience after 596 procedures.
        World Neurosurg. 2019; 128: e841-e850https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.005
        • Zegers T.
        • ter Laak-Poort M.
        • Koper D.
        • Lethaus B.
        • Kessler P.
        The therapeutic effect of patient-specific implants in cranioplasty.
        J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2017; 45: 82-86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.10.016
        • Thien A.
        • King N.K.K.
        • Ang B.T.
        • Wang E.
        • Ng I.
        Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy.
        World Neurosurg. 2015; 83: 176-180https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.003
        • Lee L.
        • Ker J.
        • Quah B.L.
        • Chou N.
        • Choy D.
        • Yeo T.T.
        A retrospective analysis and review of an institution’s experience with the complications of cranioplasty.
        Br J Neurosurg. 2013; 27: 629-635https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2013.815313
        • Mathes T.
        • Klaßen P.
        • Pieper D.
        Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17: 152https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4