Page 27 - AN-2-1
P. 27

Advanced Neurology                                       Outcomes of implant usage for depressed skull fractures



               replacement of bone fragment in compound depressed skull   Safety of autograft and allograft materials for cranioplasties,
               fractures. Surg Neurol, 51: 452–457.               a systematic review. World Neurosurg, 117: 443–452.e448.
               https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-3019(98)00040-8      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.193
            30.  Yang M, Wu Z, Yu H, et al., 2021, Reconstruction for diverse   36.  Beauchamp KM, Kashuk J, Moore EE,  et al., 2010,
               fronto-orbital defects with computer-assisted designed and   Cranioplasty after postinjury decompressive craniectomy: Is
               computer-assisted manufactured PEEK implants in one-stage   timing of the essence? J Trauma, 69: 270–274.
               operation: Case reports. Medicine (Baltimore), 100: e27452.
                                                                  https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e491c2
               https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027452
                                                               37.  Neville IS, Amorim RL, Paiva WS, et al., 2014, Early surgery
            31.  Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S, 2014, Materials used in   does not seem to be a pivotal criterion to improve prognosis
               cranioplasty: A  history and analysis.  Neurosurg Focus,   in patients with frontal depressed skull fractures. Biomed Res
               36: E19.                                           Int, 2014: 879286.
               https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.2.FOCUS13561          https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/879286
            32.  Yu Q, Chen L, Qiu Z,  et al., 2017, Skull repair materials   38.  De Cola MC, Corallo F, Pria D,  et al., 2018, Timing for
               applied in cranioplasty: History and progress Transl Neurosci   cranioplasty to improve neurological outcome: A systematic
               Clin, 3: 48–57.                                    review. Brain Behav, 8: e01106.
               https://doi.org/10.18679/CN11-6030_R.2017.007      https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1106
            33.  Wolff A, Santiago GF, Belzberg M,  et al., 2018, Adult   39.  Klinger DR, Madden C, Beshay J, et al., 2014, Autologous
               cranioplasty reconstruction with customized cranial   and acrylic cranioplasty: A review of 10 years and 258 cases.
               implants:  Preferred  technique,  timing,  and  biomaterials.   World Neurosurg, 82: e525–e530.
               J Craniofac Surg, 29: 887–894.
                                                                  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.08.005
               https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004385
                                                               40.  Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, et al., 2016, Cranioplasty:
            34.  Champlin R. Selection of autologous or allogeneic   Review of materials. J Craniofac Surg, 27: 2061–2072.
               transplantation. In: Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum
               RR,  et al., editors. Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6  ed.      https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003025
                                                      th
               Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2003. Available from: https://  41.  Satardey  RS,  Balasubramaniam  S,  Pandya  JS,  et al.,  2018,
               www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK12844                Analysis of factors influencing outcome of depressed
                                                                  fracture of skull. Asian J Neurosurg, 13: 341–347.
            35.  van de Vijfeijken S, Munker T, Spijker R,  et al., 2018,
               Autologous bone is inferior to alloplastic cranioplasties:      https://doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_117_16




































            Volume 2 Issue 1 (2023)                         11                         https://doi.org/10.36922/an.247
   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32