Page 156 - Clinical relevance of current materials for cranial implants

154
Chapter 7
50. Tahir MZ, Shamim MS, Sobani ZA, Zafar SN, Qadeer M, Bari ME. Safety of untreated autologous cranioplasty after extracorporeal storage at - 26 degree celsius. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(4):479-482.
51. van de Vijfeijken SECM, Münker TJAG, Spijker R, et al. Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties Safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review. World Neurosurg. June 2018.
52. Al-Tamimi YZ, Sinha P, Trivedi M, et al. Comparison of acrylic and titanium cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg. 2012;26(4):510-513.
53. Kwiecien GJ, Rueda S, Couto RA, et al. Long-term Outcomes of Cranioplasty: Titanium Mesh Is Not a Long- term Solution in High-risk Patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81(4):416-422.
54. Leggat PA, Smith DR, Kedjarune U. Surgical applications of methyl methacrylate: A review of toxicity. Arch Environ Occup Heal. 2009;64(3):207-212.
55. Kurtz SM. An Overview of PEEK Biomaterials. In: PEEK Biomaterials Handbook. Elsevier; 2012:1-7.
56. van de Vijfeijken SECM, Schreurs R, Dubois L, Becking AG, on behalf of the CranioSafe Group. The use of cranial resection templates with 3D virtual planning and PEEK patient-specific implants: A 3 year follow-up. J Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2018.
57. Dunn GP. Shared decision-making for the elderly patient with a surgical condition. Br J Surg. 2016;103(2):e19-e20.