Page 206 - Clinical relevance of current materials for cranial implants

204
Chapter 10
REFERENCES
1. Malcolm, J. G. et al. Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 33, 39–51 (2016).
2. Malcolm, J. G. et al. Autologous Cranioplasty is Associated with Increased Reoperation Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 116, 60–68 (2018).
3. van de Vijfeijken, S. E. C. M. et al. Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties Safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties, a systematic review. World Neurosurg. (2018).
4. Schwarz, F. et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: is there a rationale for an initial artificial bone-substitute implant? A single-center experience after 631 procedures. J. Neurosurg. 124, 710–715 (2016).
5. Leggat, P. A., Smith, D. R. & Kedjarune, U. Surgical applications of methyl methacrylate: A review of toxicity. Arch. Environ. Occup. Heal. 64, 207–212 (2009).
6. van de Vijfeijken, S. E. C. M. et al. 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. 1–6 (2018).
7. Costa, L. et al. Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate. Int. J. Dent. 2016, (2016).
8. Jonkergouw, J. et al. Outcome in patient-specific PEEK cranioplasty: A two-center cohort study of 40 implants. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 44, 1266–1272 (2016).
9. Kurtz, S. M. in PEEK Biomaterials Handbook 1–7 (Elsevier, 2012). doi:10.1016/B978-1-4377-4463-7.10001-6
10. Zanotti, B. et al. Cranioplasty: Review of Materials. J. Craniofac. Surg. 27, 2061–2072 (2016).
11. Lindner, D. et al. Cranioplasty using custom-made hydroxyapatite versus titanium: a randomized clinical
trial. J. Neurosurg. 126, 175–183 (2017).
12. Honeybul, S., Morrison, D. A., Ho, K. M., Lind, C. R. P. & Geelhoed, E. A randomised controlled trial comparing
autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty: long-term follow-up. Acta Neurochir.
(Wien). 160, 885–891 (2018).
13. Honeybul, S; Morrison, AD; HO KM; Lind , CRP; Geelhoed, E. A randomized controlled trial comparing
autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty. J. Neurosurg. 126, 81–90 (2017).
14. Proffit, William R.; Fields, H. W. Contemporary Orthodontics. (1993).
15. Klieverik, V. M., Miller, K. J., Singhal, A., Han, K. Sen & Woerdeman, P. A. Cranioplasty after craniectomy in
pediatric patients — a systematic review. (2019).
16. Ratnayake, J. T. B., Mucalo, M. & Dias, G. J. Substituted hydroxyapatites for bone regeneration: A review of
current trends. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. - Part B Appl. Biomater. 105, 1285–1299 (2017).
17. Stefini, R. et al. Use of ‘custom made’ porous hydroxyapatite implants for cranioplasty: postoperative analysis
of complications in 1549 patients. Surg. Neurol. Int. 4, 12 (2013).
18. Singh, D. & Thomas, D. Advances in medical polymer technology towards the panacea of complex 3D tissue
and organ manufacture. Am. J. Surg. 6, 2–3 (2018).
19. Zhang, L., Yang, G., Johnson, B. N. & Jia, X. Three-dimensional (3D) Printed Scaffold and Material Selection
for Bone Repair. Acta Biomater. 84, 16–33 (2018).
20. Wang, C; Zhao Q, Wang, M. Cryogenic 3D printing for producing hierarchical porous and rhBMP-2-loaded
Ca-P/PLLA nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue enineering. Biofabrication 9 2, (2017).
21. Gao, G., Yonezawa, T., Hubbell, K., Dai, G. & Cui, X. Inkjet-bioprinted acrylated peptides and PEG hydrogel with human mesenchymal stem cells promote robust bone and cartilage formation with minimal printhead
clogging. Biotechnol. J. 10, 1568–1577 (2015).
22. Blom, R. L. G. M. et al. Initial experiences of an enhanced recovery protocol in esophageal surgery. World J.
Surg. 37, 2372–2378 (2013).
23. Kehlet, H. Fast-track colorectal surgery. Lancet 371, (2008).
24. Ubbink, D. T. & Koelemay, M. J. W. Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery. Why Would You? Eur. J. Vasc.
Endovasc. Surg. 56, 749–750 (2018).
25. Johnson, K. W. et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, 2668–2679 (2018).
26. Fuessinger, M. A. et al. Planning of skull reconstruction based on a statistical shape model combined with
geometric morphometrics. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 13, 519–529 (2018).