RESUMEN
Augmentation of the craniomaxillofacial region is required for many aesthetic and reconstructive procedures. A variety of different materials and techniques have been used. Coralline hydroxyapatite has proved to have biocompatible properties as a bone graft substitute. This study further analyzes the use of porous coral-derived hydroxyapatite granules in craniomaxillofacial augmentation for cosmetic and reconstructive purposes and evaluates the long-term clinical result. This retrospective study reviewed the use of porous coral-derived hydroxyapatite granules over a 20-year period, between 1981 and 2001, in 180 patients, in whom 393 procedures were performed. The surgical technique is described and discussed. Statistical significance was evaluated by descriptive statistics and the correlation bivariate Spearman's test (p > 0.05). For 61.6 percent of the procedures, the surgical indication was reconstructive and in 38.4 percent, cosmetic. The maxilla was the most common site of surgery (44.3 percent), followed by the mandible (21.6 percent) and zygoma (15.4 percent). The complication rate was 5.6 percent (n = 22 of 393), with contour irregularities being responsible for 59 percent (n = 13 of 22). Both infection and granule extrusion were responsible for 1.3 percent of the complications. Good results were achieved in 96.4 percent of the procedures. Porous coral-derived hydroxyapatite granules have shown considerable efficacy and versatility in craniofacial contour refinement and augmentation. They are stable, biocompatible, and safe. A sterile technique is advised, with care taken not to tear the periosteum in the pocket design and with subperiosteal placement of the granules, compaction of the granules at the site, overcorrection of 15 percent of the required total volume, watertight closure, and postoperative taping to prevent mobilization. The correct surgical indications and adherence to the principles stated above will result in a very satisfactory long-term outcome.
Asunto(s)
Sustitutos de Huesos , Cerámica , Técnicas Cosméticas , Anomalías Craneofaciales/cirugía , Hidroxiapatitas , Prótesis e Implantes , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Sustitutos de Huesos/efectos adversos , Cerámica/efectos adversos , Niño , Huesos Faciales/lesiones , Femenino , Humanos , Hidroxiapatitas/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Prótesis e Implantes/efectos adversos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Various materials have been proposed for cranial reconstruction. Bone autograft and alloplasts such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and hydroxyapatite (HA) cement are most commonly used at the present time. Patients submitted for cranioplasty were evaluated. The prognostic factors influencing the results and the outcome were analyzed. Three hundred twelve patients who had 449 procedures performed by a single surgeon to reconstruct a calvarial deformity between 1981 and 2001 were studied. Post-tumor resection deformity was the main reason for cranioplasty (32.4%). Bone graft was the material of choice (69.5%). The main surgical site was the frontal bone (53.2%). Complications were observed in 23.6% of cases and were responsible for the least satisfactory results (P > 0.001), with infection and material exposure being the most critical complications. The eventual outcome was considered good in 91.8% of cases. The use of HA cement was associated with the worst results (P > 0.001). Bone grafts showed a high grade of partial resorption and required further surgery for correction. Multiple surgical procedures were correlated with a high rate of complications and an unsatisfactory outcome. Bone graft and PMMA are still the best materials in calvarial reconstruction. Even though HA cement is an osteoconductive material, it seems to induce what appears to be an immunoguided delayed inflammatory reaction that leads to thinning of the skin and exposure of the material, making secondary repair difficult. Before deciding which reconstructive option to use, a careful evaluation of the patient in terms of diagnosis, number of previous surgeries, and surgical site should be undertaken. If this is adopted, good results and a satisfactory outcome can be achieved on long-term follow-up.