Analysis of PMMA versus CaP titanium-enhanced implants for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: a retrospective observational cohort study

Numerous materials of implants used for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy (DC) have been investigated to meet certain demanded key features, such as stability, applicability, and biocompatibility. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of biocompatible calcium-phosphate (CaP) implants for cranioplasty compared to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) implants. In this retrospective observational cohort study, the medical records of all patients who underwent cranioplasty between January 1st, 2015, and January 1st, 2022, were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and diagnostic data were collected. Eighty-two consecutive patients with a mean age of 52 years (range 22–72 years) who received either a PMMA (43/82; 52.4%) or CaP (39/82; 47.6%) cranial implant after DC were included in the study. Indications for DC were equally distributed in both groups. Time from DC to cranioplasty was 143.8 ± 17.5 days (PMMA) versus 98.5 ± 10.4 days (CaP). The mean follow-up period was 34.9 ± 27.1 months. Postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients with PMMA and 6 in those with CaP implants (13/43 [30.2%] vs. 6/39 [15.4%]; p = 0.115). Revision surgery with implant removal was necessary for 9 PMMA patients and in 1 with a CaP implant (9/43 [20.9%] vs. 1/39 [2.6%]; p = 0.0336); 6 PMMA implants were removed due to surgical site infection (SSI) (PMMA 6/43 [14%] vs. CaP 0/39 [0%]; p = 0.012). In this study, a biocompatible CaP implant seems to be superior to a PMMA implant in terms of SSI and postoperative complications. The absence of SSI supports the idea of the biocompatible implant material with its ability for osseointegration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10143-022-01874-5.