Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Risk Factors of Titanium Mesh Exposure: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Center

  • Christian Beta Kurniawan ,
  • Akhmad Imron ,
  • Muhammad Rainda Farhan ,


Abstract

Introduction: Titanium mesh is commonly used to reconstruct the cranium in cranioplasty procedure. Although it is generally well-tolerated, erosion of the overlying soft tissue due to the implant exposure remained as a major risk that could impair patients' outcome. This study aimed to investigate the potential risk factors of titanium mesh exposure.

Methods: Medical records from patients who underwent titanium mesh cranioplasty within the period of July 2016 to July 2020 were retrieved. Patients' demographic and characteristics were reviewed to investigate the potential risk factors in titanium mesh exposure.

Results: Twenty-three patients were included in this study with the mean age of 44.6 (+10.9) years. Fourteen patients (60.9%) acquired titanium mesh exposure in less than 6 months after cranioplasty surgery. In majority, the duration of surgery were more than 3 hours (65.2%). Intraoperative blood loss volume was less than 500 cc in 8 patients (34.8%), 500-1000 cc in 8 patients (34.8%), and more than 1000 cc in 7 patients (30.4%). Nineteen patients had bone defect of >10 cm and the indications for craniectomy were tumor resection in 56.5% patients, followed by infection in 17.4%. The sign of infection was present in 12 patients (52.2%). Only 2 patients (8.7%) had radiotherapy after cranioplasty. One patient was diagnosed with polycythemia vera.

Conclusion: Titanium mesh exposure following cranioplasty surgery is a complication that might affect the patients' overall outcome. Female predominance, long surgery duration, excessive intraoperative blood loss might be correlated with higher risk of titanium mesh exposure.

Keywords: Risk factor titanium mesh exposure female predominance long surgery duration excessive blood loss

References

  1. Honeybul S, Ho KM. Cranioplasty: morbidity and failure. Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30(5):523-8.
  2. Jeyaraj P. Efficacy and versatility of the 3-D titanium mesh implant in the closure of large post-craniectomy osseous defects, and its therapeutic role in reversing the syndrome of the trephined: clinical study of a case series and review of literature. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2016;15:82–92.
  3. Goldstein J, Paliga JT, Bartlett SP. Cranioplasty: indications and advances. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;21:400–9.
  4. Luo J, Liu B, Xie Z, et al. comparison of manually shaped and computer-shaped titanium mesh for repairing large frontotemporoparietal skull defects after traumatic brain injury. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33:E13.
  5. Kshettry V, Hardy S, Weil RJ, et al. Immediate titanium cranioplasty after debridement and craniectomy for post craniotomy surgical site infection. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(suppl):8–14.
  6. Gundeslioglu O, Ince B. Exposed titanium mesh and dura persisting for 8 years after cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24:655–6.
  7. Ng Z, Ang WJ, Nawaz I. Computer-designed polyetheretherketone implants versus titanium mesh (TAcrylic cement) in alloplastic cranioplasty: a retrospective single-surgeon, single-center study. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:e185–e9.
  8. Thien A, King NK, Ang BT, et al. comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg. 2015;83:176–80.
  9. Watanabe S, Amagasaki K, Naemura K, et al. exposure of titanium mesh after cranioplasty for microvascular decompression surgery: two case reports. NMC Case Rep J. 2015;2:132–4.
  10. Singh M, Ricci JA, Dunn IF, et al. Alloderm covering over titanium cranioplasty may minimize contour deformities in the frontal bone position. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:1292–4.
  11. Maqbool T, Binhammer A, Binhammer P, Antonyshyn OM. Risk factors for titanium mesh implant exposure following cranioplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(5):1-6.
  12. Cabraja M, Klein M, Lehmann TN. Long-term results following titanium cranioplasty of large skull defects. FOC. 2009;26(6):E10
  13. Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, et al. cranioplasty: review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2011;2(2):162-7.
  14. Harris D, Fong AJ, Buchanan EP, et al. History of synthetic materials in alloplastic cranioplasty. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(4):E20.
  15. Shah A, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(4):E19.
  16. Mikami T, Miyata K, Komatsu K, et al. exposure of titanium implants after cranioplasty: A matter of long-term consequences. Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery: Advanced Techniques and Case Management. 2017;8:64-7.
  17. Unlu C, de Vries JP. Ischaemic scalp ulceration and hair loss. Lancet. 2014;384(9951):1375.
  18. Girgis F, Walcott B, Kwon C, et al. The absence of fever or leukocytosis does not exclude infection following cranioplasty. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. 2015;42(4):255-9.
  19. Zhang G, Yang W, JIang Y, Zeng T. Extensive duraplasty with autologous graft in decompressive craniectomy and subsequent early cranioplasty for severe head trauma. Chin J Traumatol. 2010;13(5):259-64.
  20. Corallo F, De Cola MC, Lo Buono V, et al. Early vs late cranioplasty: what is better? Int J Neurosci. 2017;127(8):688-93.
  21. Zheng F, Xu H, von Spreckelsen N, et al. Early or late cranioplasty following decompressive craniotomy for traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(7):2503-12.
  22. Bjornson A, Tajsic T, Kolias, AG, et al. A case series of early and late cranioplasty—comparison of surgical outcomes. Acta Neurochir. 2019;161:467–72.
  23. Rosinski C, Patel S, Geever B, et al. A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Titanium Mesh and Custom Implants for Cranioplasty. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(1):E15-E22.
  24. Lee L KJ, Quah BL, et al. A retrospective analysis and review of an institution's experience with the complications of cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(5):629-35.
  25. Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):219–29.
  26. Janecka I. New reconstructive technologies in skull base surgery: role of titanium mesh and porous polyethylene. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(3):396–401.
  27. Shapey J, Jung J, Barkas K. et al. A single centre's experience of managing spheno-orbital meningiomas: lessons for recurrent tumour surgery. Acta Neurochir. 2019;161:1657–67.
  28. Policicchio D, Casu G, Dipellegrini G, et al. comparison of two different titanium cranioplasty methods: Custom-made titanium prostheses versus precurved titanium mesh. Surg Neurol Int. 2020;11:148
  29. Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, et al. Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006;148:535-40.
  30. Di Rienzo A, Pangrazi PP, Riccio M, et al. Skin flap complications after decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty: Proposal of classification and treatment options. Surg Neurol Int. 2016;7(Suppl 28):S737-S45.
  31. Reddy S, Khalifian S, Flores JM. Clinical outcomes in cranioplasty: risk factors and choice of reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:864–73.
  32. Martin M, Olson S. Postoperative complications with titanium mesh. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16:1080-1.

How to Cite

Kurniawan, C. B., Akhmad Imron, & Muhammad Rainda Farhan. (2022). Risk Factors of Titanium Mesh Exposure: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Center. Bali Medical Journal, 11(3), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v11i3.2428
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
0

Total
1

Share

Search Panel

Christian Beta Kurniawan
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Akhmad Imron
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Muhammad Rainda Farhan
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal