Turkish Neurosurgery
Comparative analysis of using bone graft, hydroxyapatite coralline (Biocoral) and porous polyethylene (Medpor) implants for cranioplasty in a rat model of cranial bone defect
Ayhan Okumus1
1Private Aesthetic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Office, Aesthetic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bursa,
DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.26847-19.3

Aim:To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of using bone graft, hydroxyapatite coralline (Biocoral) and porous polyethylene (Medpor) implants for cranioplasty in a rat model of cranial bone defectMaterial and Methods:A total of 16 male Sprague-Dawley rats were separated into 2 groups (n=8 for each) in terms of cranioplasty materials (Medpor or Biocoral on one side with bone graft on the contralateral side) used for repair of bilateral parietal bone defects. Final analysis included 32 unilateral parietal bone defects repaired with use of Medpor (n=8; 4 left, 4 right), Biocoral (n=8; 4 left, 4 right) or bone-graft (n=16, 8 left, 8 right). All rats were sacrificed with either at 4 weeks or 8 weeks for analysis of implant stability, volumetric change and histological parameters. Results:Bone formation (p=0.003), healing of defect (p=0.008) and material resorption (p=0.010) scores at 8th week were higher in bone graft than in both Biocoral and Medpor, while 8th week fibrosis scores were significantly higher in Medpor and Biocoral than in bone graft (p=0.004). Except for significantly higher 8th week inflammatory cell infiltration scores in Medpor than in both Biocoral (p=0.005), Medpor and Biocoral groups were similar in terms of all parameters. Conclusion:In conclusion, our findings revealed similar implant stability scores with the three implants, better bone formation and healing of defect with use of bone grafts, lower risk of resorption and higher fibrosis induction with use of both Medpor and Biocoral, and a more favorable volumetric change with use of Medpor.

Corresponding author : Ayhan Okumus