Отправить письмо автору 
Написать комментарий 
COSMETIC RESULTS OF RECONSTRUCTIVE NEUROSURGICAL INTERVENTIONS ON THE SKULL
Koporushko N. A., Mishinov S.V., Kangel'diev A.E., Stupak V.V.
Tsivyan Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Novosibirsk, Russia
Acquired deformations and post-trepanation
artificial defects of cranial bones are mostly caused by severe head injuries
and also by previous craniectomy for brain tumors, aneurysm rupture, cervical
perfusion disorders with cerebral edema and dislocation syndrome [1-7]. The
increase in amount of decompressive trepanations during the last decade is
determined by their efficiency in adequate correction of brain edema in the
above mentioned conditions. These interventions cause extensive defects of
cranial bones which affect two, three and even more cranial fields.
Reconstructive surgery
(cranioplasty for closing cranial defects) is not difficult in technical
realization, but it has not only the technical component for restoration of
protective function of cranial bones, but also the significant esthetic aspect,
which is related to patient's satisfaction with cosmetic result [3, 8].
Particularly, defects in frontotemporal lobe often cause esthetic problems due
to their visible location. Postsurgical atrophy of the temporal muscle worsens
a poor cosmetic result in this region.
Another important
component in treatment of patients of such category is optimization of
reconstructive intervention since persistence of an extensive defect of cranial bones leads to development
and persistent preservation of trepanation syndrome, which is one of the key
causes of decreasing working capability in young people without intense
neurologic deficiency [1].
The increase in the
rate of extensive decompressive trepanations causes the increasing incidence of
use of individual implants since they allow closing the extensive defects with
sizes exceeding the standard titanium mesh, and, from other side, achieving
desirable cosmetic results since these items are produced with preliminary
computer modeling and with consideration of anatomic features of patient's
skull [13, 14].
One should note that
review of domestic literature shows that authors accentuate their attention to
such conditions as trophic disturbances of skin aponeurotic flap, incidence of
purulent, surgical and neurological complications, and they almost do not say
about cosmetic outcomes, although, as known, improvement in life quality and
satisfaction with medical care are the trends of the modern medicine. As
result, the study objective was set.
Objective –
to estimate the cosmetic results of reconstructive interventions in patients
with skull bone defects using individual plates made using three-dimensional
printing, and standard titanium implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The clinical materials included 161 patients with cranial defects. They were treated in Tsivyan Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics. The prospective analysis (2017-2019) with historical control capture (2009-2016) included reconstructive surgeries for closure of bone defects. The study was conducted in two groups: 1) patients (80 persons) with individual titanium implants (3D printing) for replacement of a bone defect (the study group); 20 patients (81 persons) who received cranioplasty with standard titanium implants (the control group). The table 1 shows the general features of the groups.
Table 1 . General characteristics of patients with acquired cranial defects, n (%)
|
Characteristics of patients |
Groups |
Total |
|
|
Study |
Comparison |
||
|
Total amount of patients |
80 (49.69 %) |
81 (50.31 %) |
161 (100 %) |
|
Mean age (years), М |
43.6 |
41.2 |
42.4 |
|
Men |
44 (55 %) |
48 (59.26 %) |
92 (57.14 %) |
|
PТМФ > 0.05 / PFET > 0.05 |
|||
|
Women |
36 (45 %) |
33 (40.74 %) |
69 (42.86 %) |
|
PТМФ > 0.05 / PFET > 0.05 |
|||
|
Terms of postsurgical follow-up (months), M ± m |
24.66 ± 1.43 |
53.44 ± 3.82 |
39.14 ± 2.34 |
|
PU < 0.001 |
|||
Note: PU – Mann-Whitney test with statistically significant values with Pu ≤ 0.05; PFET – Fisher’s exact test, * – no statistical differences for PFET > 0.05.
There were not any statistically
significant intergroup differences in amount of patients, mean age, gender
distribution, ratio of patients according to their number, sizes and location
of available bone defects.
According to the classification
accepted in Burdenko Neurosurgery Institute, the patients were distributed
according to causes of defects, location in relation to the roof and base of
the skull, lateralization, location, sizes and condition of soft tissue in
region defect [15].
Considering the fact that 4
patients of each group received two post-trepanation defects, the study group
included 82 bone defects, the comparison group - 83. Among all cases with 161
patients, 94 (58.4 %) were operated for traumatic brain injury; 98 (59.4 %)
posttrepanation defects appeared. 49 (29.7 %) bone defects were closed with individual
implants, 49 (29.7 %) - with use of standard implants. Among 67 (41.6 %) patients
(33 (20 %) and 34 (20.6 %) in the study group and in the comparison group,
correspondingly), with neurooncologic pathology as the cause of bone defects,
21 patients (31.3 %) received the individual implant, and 30 (44.8 %)
- standard one. Among 11 (16.4 %) surgical patients with cerebrovascular
pathology, 8 (11.9 %) defects were in the study group and 3 (4.5 %) in the
comparison group. 5 (7.5 %) patients had some defects caused by neuroinfectious
processes: 4 defects (6 %) in the study group, 1 (1.5 %) - in the comparison
group.
Depending on lateralization, bone
defects in 82 (50.9 %) patients (41 (25.5 %) in the study group), 41 (25.45 %) in
the comparison group) were located to the left, in 62 (38.5 %) - to the right (32
(19.9 %) and 30 (18.6 %) in the study group and in the comparison group,
correspondingly). 17 (10.6 %) patients had some cranial defects on both sides:
7 (4.4 %) patients in the study group, 10 (6.2 %) - in the comparison group. The
jugal-orbital-facial region was involved by postcranioectomy defects in 17
(10.6 %) operated patients, 5 patients (3.1 %) with individual implants, and 12
(7.5 %) patients with standard implants.
Totally, bone
defects were in 330 cranial regions in 161 operated patients. The highest
amount of bone defects was in parietal
(n = 123, 41 %) and temporal (n = 117, 39 %) regions. There were 84 (28 %) bone
defects in the frontal region, and 6 ones (2 %) in the occipital region.
According to condition of soft tissues, 64 (38.8
%) patients had no changes, 5 (3 %) patients had scar processes, and 96 (58.2
%) - intense tissue deformations with depression over the jugal bone in the
temporal region due to atrophy of the temporal muscle. Among them, 66 defects
(41 %) were extensive, 27 (16.8 %) - big, 3 (3.1 %) - small and average. The
study group had 44 (55 %) extensive and 9 (11.3 %) big defects, the comparison
group - 22 (27.2 %) and 18 (22.2 %) such defects, correspondingly (Fig. 1).
Figure. A face photo of the patient
with extensive defect in left parietotemporal region with rough atrophy of musculus
temporalis
According to the recommendations for reconstructive surgery of skull defects (2015) from Russian Association of Neurosurgeons [16], posttrepanation defects were distributed into small (up to 10 cm2), average (10-30 cm2), big (30-60 cm2) and extensive (> 60 cm2) cranial defects. The table 2 shows the distribution of patients according to square of defects.
Table 2. Distribution of cranial defects in groups in dependence on square and number of defects, n (%)
|
Main feature of defects |
Bone defects distributed into groups |
Small (number, %) |
Mean (number, %) |
Big (number, %) |
Extensive (number, %) |
|
Number of defects |
Study group |
- |
5 (3.0 %) |
20 (12.1 %) |
57 (34.5 %) |
|
Comparison group |
5 (3.0%) |
25 (15.2 %) |
28 (17.0 %) |
25 (15.2 %) |
|
|
Total number of defects |
5 (3.0%) |
30 (18.2 %) |
48 (29.1 %) |
82 (49.7 %) |
|
|
Mean square of defect (cm2) |
Study group |
- |
19.4 ± 2.7 |
47.3 ± 2.2 |
105.9 ± 5.7 |
|
Comparison group |
7.2 ± 0.9 |
20.85 ± 1.1 |
42.25 ± 1.4 |
105.3 ± 8.3 |
|
|
Mean square of all defects |
7.2 ± 0.9 |
20.6 ± 0.9 |
44.4 ± 1.3 |
105.7 ± 4.7 |
|
|
Minimal square of defect (cm2) |
Study group |
- |
12.6 |
32.9 |
62.8 |
|
Comparison group |
3.53 |
13.7 |
30.2 |
62.8 |
|
|
Maximal square of defect (cm2) |
Study group |
- |
27.5 |
56.5 |
245.0 |
|
Comparison group |
9.42 |
28.3 |
56.7 |
219.9 |
Note: no comparison was conducted between groups.
Among all patients, the minimal size of a cranial
defect was 3.53 cm2, maximal size - 24.5 cm2.
For examination of long term results of surgical
treatment, we developed a score based on some plastic surgery estimation scores
by Ramsey Alsarraf (2000) [17] for assessment of long term cosmetic results of
surgical treatment after four common procedures of facial plasty surgery:
rhinoplasty, rhytidectomy (facial lift), blepharoplasty and various procedures
of dermabrasion (laser and chemical peeling).
Our score includes some questions and possible
variants of answers for operated patients. The maximal number of points in one question
was 4. The estimation was conducted according to sum of points. The points were
interpreted as indicated below: 19-24 points - excellent cosmetic result, 13-18
points - good result, 7-12 points - satisfactory result, 0-6 points - poor
result.
The score for estimation of cosmetic results after
reconstructive surgery for closure of skull defects includes the following items:
1. Estimate your satisfaction with appearance of
your head:
a) no changes;
b) to some degree;
c) moderate;
d) I am quite satisfied;
e) I am satisfied completely.
2. What about your anxiety concerning the current
cosmetic changes in the surgery site:
a) very strong anxiety;
b) strong anxiety;
c) moderate anxiety;
d) to some degree;
e) no anxiety.
3. How other people estimate your appearance:
a) extremely mutilated;
b) very mutilated;
c) rather harmonic than mutilated;
d) quite harmonic;
e) no differences from other people.
4. Does your current appearance limit your social
or professional activity:
a) it limits constantly;
b) it limits often;
c) it limits sometimes;
d) it limits rarely;
e) no limitations.
5. Do appearance and symmetry of your head
present the best variant:
a) definitely no;
b) rather no than yes;
c) 50/50, may be it could be better;
d) rather yes than no;
e) definitely yes.
6. Would you like to change the appearance of
your head in the surgery site with use of additional methods of treatment:
a) certainly;
b) with high probability;
c) probably;
d) rather no;
e) no.
Our score was analyzed for estimation of its reliability.
Two methods were used: 10 split-half method (reliability was 0.9); 2)
calculation of Cronbach's alpha (reliability was 0.9). The analysis showed the
validation of the score, and possibility for its practical use for estimation
of cosmetic results of treatment after realization of surgical interventions
for closure of cranial defects.
All patients were operated with use of the modern
microsurgical techniques. They received 169 operations. 157 (97.5 %) patients
were operated in one step; 4 patients (2.5 %) received two-staged operations
for 2 (1.2 %) cases of meningocele in region of bone defects and for 2 cases
(1.2 %) with nasal liquorrhea. Therefore, 2 patients primarily received the
surgical interventions for revision of epidural cavity and for realization of
dura matter plasty. Two patients received skull hermetization by means of
closure of frontal sinus with fat flap. After wound healing, one and a half
month after surgery, the main stage for closure of cranial defect was
conducted.
Statistical
analysis. The statistical analysis was carried out with
Statistica 10. Mann-Whitney test and Fisher's exact test were used for
estimation of confidence. P ≤ 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
The study corresponds to the ethical principles
of Helsinki Declare (2013), and to the Rules for Clinical Practice in the
Russian Federation (the Order by the Russian Health Ministry, June 19, 2003,
No. 266). It was approved by the local ethical committee (the protocol No.
008/20, April 5, 2020).
RESULTS
On the basis of our scale, we analyzed the cosmetic results of surgical treatment in two groups of patients after closure of bone defects with use of standard and individual implants (the table 3). The mean sum of points was 23.9 ± 0.1 in the study group; the minimal one - 20, the maximal one - 24. In the comparison group, the mean sum of points was 21 ± 0.6; the minimal and maximal values - 4 and 24, correspondingly.
Table 3. General distribution of patients in dependence on cosmetic results
|
Treatment outcomes |
Amount of patients |
|
|
Individual implants (number, %) |
Standard implants (number, %) |
|
|
Excellent (19-24 points) |
80 (100.0 %) |
62 (76.5 %) |
|
PТМФ < 0.01 / PFET < 0.01 |
||
|
Good (13-18 points) |
- |
8 (9.9 %) |
|
Satisfactory (7-12 points) |
- |
7 (8.6 %) |
|
Poor (0-6 points) |
- |
4 (5 %) |
|
Total |
80 (100 %) |
81 (100 %) |
Note: statistically significant differences with PFET < 0.05.
The patients with individual titanium implants
achieved 100 % of excellent cosmetic results. The patients with standard
implants showed excellent results in 76.5 % (62) of cases, good results - in 8
(9.9 %), satisfactory results - in 7 (8.6 %), poor ones - in 4 (5 %).
The statistical analysis showed the dependence of
the results on a type of the implant. The number of excellent results of
surgical interventions was higher for individual implants as compared to
standard ones (p < 0.05).
Also we conducted the analysis of cosmetic
results depending on bone defects (the table 4). The size of a bone defect
significantly influenced on cosmetic results. The highest percentage of
excellent cosmetic results was in the group with individual implants: all 55
(100 %) patients or 76.2 % of the whole group of patients with excellent
results. In this group, the minimal sum of points was 20, the maximal one - 24
(p < 0.05).
Table 4. Distribution of patients in dependence on sizes of defect and received cosmetic results
|
Treatment outcomes |
Number of patients with extensive defects (number, %) |
Number of patients with big defects (number, %) |
Number of patients with mean ad small defects (number, %) |
Total amount of patients (number, %) |
|||
|
Individual implant |
Standard implant |
Individual implant |
Standard implant |
Individual implant |
Standard implant |
||
|
Excellent (19-24 points) |
55 (100.0 %) |
17 (68.0 %) |
20 (100.0 %) |
21 (77.8 %) |
5 (100.0 %) |
24 (82.8) |
142 (88.2 %) |
|
PТМФ < 0.01 / PFET < 0.01 |
PТМФ = 1.0 / PFET = 1.0 |
||||||
|
Good (13-18 points) |
- |
2 (8.0 %) |
- |
3 (11.1%) |
- |
3 (10.3 %) |
8 (5.0.%) |
|
Satisfactory (7-12 points) |
- |
4 (16.0 %) |
- |
2 (7.4 %) |
- |
1 (3.4 %) |
7 (4.3 %) |
|
Poor (0-6 points) |
- |
2 (8.0 %) |
- |
1 (3.7 %) |
- |
1 (3.4 %) |
4 (2.5 %) |
|
Total |
55 (100.0 %) |
25 (100.0 %) |
20 (100.0 %) |
27 (100.0 %) |
5 (100.0 %) |
29 (100.0 %) |
161 (100 %) |
Note: Statistically significant differences with PFET < 0.05.
Among patients of the study group with big
cranial defects, the excellent results were achieved in 100 % of cases (p <
0.05).The group with standard implants showed excellent results in 77.8 % (21
of 27 operated patients), good results - in 3 (11.1 %), satisfactory results
-in 2 (7.4 %) and poor ones - in 1 (3.7 %).
The patients with average and small defects
showed excellent cosmetic results in 100 % (5) and 82.8 % (24) of cases in the
study group and in the comparison group, correspondingly. Patients with
standard implants showed good cosmetic result in 3 (10.3 %) cases,
satisfactory results - in 1 (3.4 %)
case, and poor ones in 1 (3.4 %).
The most severe situations relating to
satisfactory cosmetic results were some cases with big and extensive cranial
defects in the frontal-parietal-temporal region with significant atrophy of the
temporal muscle in patients with significant cosmetic defects. The table 5
shows the results of surgical treatment depending on sizes of a defect of the
temporal bone.
Table 5. Cosmetic results of treatment of patients in dependence on sizes of temporal bone defect with musculus temporalis atrophy
|
Treatment outcome |
КNumber of patients with extensive defects (number, %) |
Number of patients with big defects (number, %) |
Total number of patients (number, %) |
||
|
Individual implant |
Standard implant |
Individual implant |
Standard implant |
||
|
Excellent (19-24 points) |
44 (100.0 %) |
13 (59.1 %) |
9 (100.0 %) |
14 (77.7 %) |
80 (87 %) |
|
PТМФ < 0.01 / PFET < 0.01 |
PТМФ = 0.2 / PFET = 0.2 |
||||
|
Good (13-18 points) |
- |
2 (9.1 %) |
- |
2 (11.1 %) |
4 (4.3 %) |
|
Satisfactory (7-12 points) |
- |
5 (22.7 %) |
- |
1 (5.6 %) |
5 (5.4 %) |
|
Poor (0-6 points) |
- |
2 (9.1 %) |
- |
1 (5.6 %) |
3 (3.3 %) |
|
Total |
44 (100.0 %) |
22 (100.0 %) |
9 (100.0 %) |
18 (100.0 %) |
92 (100 %) |
Note: Statistically significant differences with PFET < 0.05.
On the basis of the data in the table 5, one can say that the use of individual implants during cranioplasty in patients with evident atrophy of the temporal muscle allows closure of extensive and big defects of cranial defects, and achievement of 100 % of excellent cosmetic results.
DISCUSSION
Since the patient's subjective estimation is the
important component of surgical treatment in neurosurgery and any other
reconstructive interventions, we, for the first time, analyzed degrees of
satisfaction with cosmetic results of cranioplasty. Both groups of the
respondents did not show any significant differences in causes of cranial
defects, with 58.4 % of patients with consequences of traumatic brain injury as
the main cause.
According to the literature data, the estimation
of results of surgical intervention is conducted with special questionnaires,
most of which are focused on general well-being and life quality. For esthetic
surgery, some specific questionnaires for each section were developed: nasal
plasty, facial lifting, mammoplasty etc. The questionnaire by Fischer C.M. et
al. (2012) was offered for estimation of results of reconstructive neurosurgical
interventions [18]. However, the authors did
not present any data on point stratification and validation of the
scale. As result, we developed the variant of the scale for estimation of
cosmetic results of cranioplasty which gives the point estimation of each
parameter.
The best surgical results were in patients with
extensive and big cranial defects who received cranioplasty with individual
implants produced with computer modeling and 3D printing. All these patients showed
excellent cosmetic results. The patients with extensive defects treated with
standard perforated titanium implants showed excellent results in 68 %, with
bone defects - in 77.8 %.
Lower sizes (average and small) of bone defects
gave lower dependence of cosmetic results on a type of the implant. It is
explained by the fact that small sizes of a bone defect can be rapidly covered
with titanium sheet without modeling for compliance with anatomic features of
the skull. It
is simply fixed to edges of a bone. Excellent cosmetic results are 82.8 %.
The literature analysis and our experience showed
poor cosmetic results were more often in frontal and temporal regions since
these regions are not covered with hair, and patients can see such defects in
the mirror. As we mentioned, the temporal muscle atrophy makes additional
influence. This atrophy worsens during recurrent surgical interventions
[19-23]. This circumstance accentuates the necessity of use of individual
implants during surgery for frontal and temporal regions, which are most
significant for esthetic perspective. Considering the fact, that adequate
decompressive trepanation should be extended to the basis of the middle cranial
fossa, with resection of a part of the temporal bone, and separating the temporal
muscle, one can make a logical conclusion that absolute amount of craniectomy
procedures will give good cosmetic effects.
One should note that the use of individual
implants do not warrant restoration of previous head symmetry since the shape
of the implant considers only bone structures; soft tissues are not considered
during modeling. Therefore, we developed a way for production of the individual
implant with possibility of alternation of curvature in site of the atrophied
temporal muscle for correction of atrophy-related cosmetic defects (the
patent). We also developed the fixing elements, which are located inside the
implant. They allow proper fixation of the temporal muscle, and prevents
migration during mastication.
The conducted study showed that our method, which
includes modification of the implant curvature in the temporal region, with
fixation of the temporal muscle to the implant, gives good and excellent
cosmetic results.
CONCLUSION
1. The use of the individual implant for big and
extensive skull defects allows 100 % of excellent cosmetic results. The use of
the standard implant for patients with extensive cranial defects gives 68 % of
excellent results in the whole group, and in 77.8 % of patients with big
defects.
2. The individual implant produced with 3D
printing is a method of choice in reconstructive surgery for closure of
extensive and big defects.
Information on financing and conflict of interest
The study was conducted without sponsorship.
The authors declare the absence of any clear or
potential conflicts of interests relating to publication of this article.
REFERENCES:
1. Koropushko NA, Stupak VV, Mishinov SV,
Orlov KYu. Astrakov SV, Vardosanidze VK, et al. Etiology and epidemiology of
acquired cranial defects in various abnormalities of central nervous system,
and number of patients requiring for defect closure by the example of a big
industrial city. Modern Problems of
Science and Education. 2019; (2): 120-130. DOI: 10.17513/spno.28660. Russian (Копорушко Н.А., Ступак В.В., Мишинов
С.В., Орлов К.Ю., Астраков С.В., Вардосанидзе В.К. и др. Этиология и
эпидемиология приобретенных дефектов костей черепа, полученных при различной
патологии центральной нервной системы, и число больных, нуждающихся в их
закрытии, на примере крупного промышленного города //Современные проблемы науки
и образования. 2019. № 2. С. 120-130. DOI: 10.17513/spno.28660)
2. Fiaschi P, Pavanello M, Imperato A,
Dallolio V, Accogli A, Capra V, et al. Surgical results of cranioplasty with a
polymethylmethacrylate customized cranial implant in pediatric patients: a
single-center experience. Journal of
Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2016; 17(6): 705-710. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.PEDS15489
3. Jaberi J, Gambrell K, Tiwana P, Madden C, Finn
R. Long-term clinical outcome analysis of poly-methyl-methacrylate cranioplasty
for large skull defects. Journal of Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2013; 71(2): e81-e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.09.023
4. Jonkergouw J, Van de Vijfeijken SE, Nout
E, Theys T, Van de Casteele E, Folkersma H, Becking AG. Outcome in
patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: a two-center cohort study of 40 implants. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery.
2016; 44(9): 1266-1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.005
5. O'Reilly EB, Barnett S, Madden C, Welch B,
Mickey B, Rozen S. Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK)
implants in revision cranioplasty. Journal
of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2015; 68(3): 329-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.001
6. Park EK, Lim JY, Yun IS, Kim JS, Woo SH,
Kim DS, Shim KW. Cranioplasty enhanced by three-dimensional printing:
custom-made three-dimensional-printed titanium implants for skull defects. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2016;
27(4): 943-949. https://doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002656
7. Schwarz F, Dünisch P, Walter J, Sakr Y,
Kalff R, Ewald C. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: is there a
rationale for an initial artificial bone-substitute implant? A single-center
experience after 631 procedures. Journal
of Neurosurgery. 2016; 124(3): 710-715. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.4.JNS159
8. Rotaru H, Stan H, Florian IS, Schumacher
R, Park YT, Kim SG, et al. Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: analyzing
the cases of 10 patients. Journal of Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012; 70(2): e169-e176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.09.036
9. Goh RC, Chang CN, Lin CL, Lo LJ.
Customised fabricated implants after previous failed cranioplasty. Journal of plastic, reconstructive &
aesthetic surgery. 2010; 63(9): 1479-1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.010
10. Lee SC, Wu CT, Lee ST, Chen PJ. Cranioplasty
using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. Journal
of clinical neuroscience. 2009; 16(1): 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2008.04.001
11. Liu JK, Gottfried ON, Cole C., Dougherty WR,
Couldwell WT. Porous polyethylene implant for cranioplasty and skull base
reconstruction. Neurosurgical focus.
2004; 16(3): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.16.3.14
12. Scholz M, Wehmöller M, Lehmbrock J,
Schmieder K, Engelhardt M, Harders A, et al. Reconstruction of the temporal
contour for traumatic tissue loss using a CAD/CAM-prefabricated titanium
implant-case report. Journal of
cranio-maxillofacial surgery. 2007; 35(8): 388-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2007.06.006
13. Mishinov
SV, Stupak VV, Koporushko NA,
Samokhin AG, Panchenko AA, Krasovskii IB, et al. Titanium
patient-specific implants in reconstructive neurosurgery. Biomedical Engineering. 2018; 52(3): 152-155
14. Mishinov SV, Stupak VV, Koropushko AN.
Cranioplasty: review of techniques and new technologies in development of
implants. Polytrauma. 2018; (4): 82-89. Russian (Мишинов С.В., Ступак В. В., Копорушко
А. Н. Краниопластика: обзор методик и новые технологии в создании имплантов //Политравма.
2018. №. 4. С.
82-89)
15. Konovalov A, Potapov AA, Likhterman LB,
Kornienko VN, Kravchuk AD, Okhlopkov VA, et al. Reconstructive and minimal
invasive surgery of consequences of traumatic brain injury. Moscow, 2012. 318 p.
Russian (Russian (Коновалов
А., Потапов А. А., Лихтерман Л. Б., Корниенко В. Н., Кравчук А. Д., Охлопков В.
А. и др. Реконструктивная и минимально инвазивная хирургия последствий
черепно-мозговой травмы. Москва, 2012. 318 с.)
16. Potapov AA, Kravchuk AD, Likhterman LB,
Okhlopkov VA, Chobulov SA, Maryakhin AD. Reconstructive surgery of cranial
defects: clinical recommendations. Association of Neurosurgeons of Russia.
Moscow, 2015. 22 p. Russian (Потапов А.А., Кравчук А.Д.,
Лихтерман Л.Б., Охлопков В.А., Чобулов С.А., Маряхин А.Д. Реконструктивная
хирургия дефектов черепа: клинические рекомендации /Ассоциация нейрохирургов
России. Москва, 2015. 22 с.)
17. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic
surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic
plastic surgery. 2000; 24(3): 192-197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s002660010031
18. Fischer C.M., Burkhardt
J.K., Sarnthein J., Bernays R.L., Bozinov O. Aesthetic outcome in patients
after polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) cranioplasty – a questionnaire-based
single-centre study. Neurological
research. 2012; 34(3): 281-285. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743132812Y.0000000007
19. Balossier A, Durand A, Achim VV, Noudel R,
Hurel S, Emery E. Reconstruction of the cranial vault using CAD/CAM-fabricated
glass bioceramic implants. Neuro-Chirurgie.
2011; 57(1): 21-27. 10.1016/j.neuchi.2010.08.003
20. Cabraja M, Klein M, Lehmann
TN. Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects. Neurosurgical focus. 2009; 26(6): E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.3.FOCUS091
21. Hong KS, Kang SH, Lee JB, Chung YG, Lee HK,
Chung HS. Cranioplasty with the porous plyethylene implant (Medpor) for large
cranial defect. Journal of Korean
Neurosurgical Society. 2005; 38(2): 96-101
22. Joffe J, Harris M, Kahugu F,
Nicoll S., Linney A, Richards R. A prospective study of computer-aided design
and manufacture of titanium plate for cranioplasty and its clinical outcome. British journal of neurosurgery. 1999;
13(6): 576-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688699943088
23. Staffa G, Nataloni A, Compagnone C, Servadei
F. Custom made cranioplasty prostheses in porous hydroxy-apatite using 3D
design techniques: 7 years experience in 25 patients. Acta neurochirurgica. 2007; 149(2): 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-006-1078-9
Статистика просмотров
Ссылки
- На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.
