4.6 Article

Association between metal hypersensitivity and implant failure in patients who underwent titanium cranioplasty

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 40-46

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2018.1.JNS171804

关键词

cranioplasty; metal hypersensitivity; implant failure; patch test; surgical technique

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81471241, 81301339, 81671200, 81271374]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality Project [16411955300, 18441903300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Digitally designed titanium plates are commonly used for the reconstruction of craniofacial defects, although implant exposure (referred to as failure) is one of the major complications. Metal hypersensitivities have been suggested as possible causes of implant failure of orthopedic, intravascular, gynecological, and dental devices, yet there has been no consensus on the requirement for allergy screening before cranioplasty. METHODS In this study, the authors prospectively investigated the prevalence of metal hypersensitivity in patients for whom cranioplasty is planned and assess its relationship with titanium implant failure (exposure). RESULTS Based on records from 207 included patients, 39.61% of patients showed hypersensitivity to at least one kind of metal. Approximately one-quarter (25.12%) of patients had multiple metal allergies. Co, Cd, and Zn were the 3 most frequently identified metal hypersensitivities. No allergy to titanium was detected in this study. The overall incidence of cranioplasty implant failure was 5.31% (11 of 207). Patients showing hypersensitivities to more than 3 kinds of metal had higher risks of titanium plate exposure. CONCLUSIONS Based on their findings, the authors suggest that routine allergy screening be performed before titanium plate cranioplasty. For patients with hypersensitivities to more than 3 metals, alternative materials, such as polyetheretherketone, should be considered for cranioplasty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据