Comparison of Cranioplasty With PEEK and Titanium
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION FOR CRANIOPLASTY WITH POLYETHERETHERKETONE AND TITANIUM IMPLANTS
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is suggested as an effective surgical intervention for patients with high intracranial pressure. For the skull defect after DC, cranioplasty could pro-vide protection, aesthetic and even functional improvements. The autologous bone flap (ABF) was once thought to be an optimal autograft for repairing [8]. While accumulated studies reported ABF related disadvantages. Recently, various customized artificial materials are increasingly employed, e.g., titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Titanium is a widely applied metal material for cranioplasty, attribute to its high strength, bio-compatibility and comparatively low material cost. Currently, pre-operative three dimensional (3D) reconstruction of titanium brings a customized implant for optimal shaping effect. However, titanium implant is still confronted with complications of infection, implant exposure, etc.
PEEK is a novel polymer used to rebuild the personalized construction. Through the precise computational reconstruction of high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scanning, the customized PEEK could more accurately rebuild the complex cranial and maxillofacial structure. The application of this material in cranioplasty is increasing, while its comprehensive evaluation in clinical practice is still insufficient, especially when comparing with the effects of titanium implant.
We thus designed the study to evaluate the comprehensive effects of the cranioplasty with PEEK vs titanium. The data of the patients implanted PEEK or titanium in four years in our institute were retrospectively collected and evaluated, in respects of the general information of patients, postoperative complications, shaping effects, and psychosocial improvements, to display a comprehensive evaluation for these two implants.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients underwent cranioplasty with PEEK or Titanium.
- Patients underwent cranioplasty and had complete data and 6-month follow-up records.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients underwent cranioplasty with other material or ABF.
- Patients had incomplete data or follow-up records.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Observational Models: Cohort
- Time Perspectives: Retrospective
Number of groups / cohorts
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / CohortGroup / Cohort |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
PEEK
Cranioplasty patients with PEEK.
|
The surgery implanted artificial material to repair the skull defect.
|
|
Titanium
Cranioplasty patients with titanium mesh.
|
The surgery implanted artificial material to repair the skull defect.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Complications
Time Frame: December 2016 to December 2020
|
Postoperative complications including Incision infection, Subcutaneous infection, Postoperative hematoma, Subcutaneous effusion, New seizure, Implants exposure and Implants removal.
|
December 2016 to December 2020
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Postoperative cranial symmetry
Time Frame: December 2016 to July 2020
|
The postoperative cranial symmetry derived from the reconstruction of postoperative CT image.
|
December 2016 to July 2020
|
Other Outcome Measures
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Postoperative improvement of GOSE score
Time Frame: December 2016 to Decemeber 2020
|
The GOSE score in 6-month follow-up compared with the GOSE score in admission
|
December 2016 to Decemeber 2020
|
|
Postoperative feelings
Time Frame: May 2017 to Decemeber 2020
|
The subjective feelings for cranioplasty effect including 5 degrees of satisfaction and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory Score
|
May 2017 to Decemeber 2020
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- RJCP2020
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.