Comparative clinical impact of low-curvature and normal-curvature titanium mesh in cranioplasty: a retrospective analysis of patient outcomes.

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2025.1438307

Shengkai Yang, Weihua Chen, Hongwei Teng, Lei Zhang, Kangkang Ji, Hai Zhou

{"title":"Comparative clinical impact of low-curvature and normal-curvature titanium mesh in cranioplasty: a retrospective analysis of patient outcomes.","authors":"Shengkai Yang, Weihua Chen, Hongwei Teng, Lei Zhang, Kangkang Ji, Hai Zhou","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2025.1438307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of two types of cranioplasty surgery involving low-curvature and normal-curvature titanium mesh, respectively.Methods: The clinical data were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing skull defect repair surgery between January 2021 and December 2022. The clinical outcomes associated with the two surgical approaches were compared and analyzed.Results: A total of 67 patients who underwent skull defect repair surgery were enrolled, with 22 in the low-curvature titanium mesh group and 45 in the normal-curvature titanium mesh group. Both before and after propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, the hospital stay for the low-curvature titanium mesh group was significantly shorter than that for the normal-curvature mesh group (Before: 9.14 ± 2.64 vs. 12.51 ± 4.15, P = 0.001; After: 9.44 ± 2.83 vs. 12.13 ± 4.40, P = 0.048). The low-curvature group exhibited lower overall hospitalization costs than the normal-curvature group (Before: 23500. ± 900. vs. 24,900. ± 1,100., P < 0.001; After: 23,300. ± 800. vs. 24,100. ± 1,000., P = 0.026). Moreover, satisfaction with molding (Before: 4.23 ± 0.75 vs. 3.18 ± 0.81, P = 0.001; After: 4.13 ± 0.72 vs. 3.25 ± 0.78, P < 0.001), Karnofsky's Performance Status score (Before: 93.32 ± 1.67 vs. 90.38 ± 3.50, P = 0.001; After: 93.56 ± 1.75 vs. 91.00 ± 3.78, P < 0.001), and Quality of Life score (Before: 52.95 ± 2.13 vs. 50.18 ± 3.54, P = 0.001; After: 53.31 ± 2.12 vs. 50.38 ± 4.23, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the low-curvature titanium mesh group than the normal-curvature titanium mesh group.Conclusions: Applying low-curvature titanium mesh for skull repair effectively shortens the hospital stay, reduces overall hospitalization costs,enhances patient satisfaction with surgical modeling, and improves the postoperative functional status and quality of life of patients undergoing neurosurgery. These advantages warrant further clinical promotion.","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"12 ","pages":"1438307"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842316/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1438307","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of two types of cranioplasty surgery involving low-curvature and normal-curvature titanium mesh, respectively.

Methods: The clinical data were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing skull defect repair surgery between January 2021 and December 2022. The clinical outcomes associated with the two surgical approaches were compared and analyzed.

Results: A total of 67 patients who underwent skull defect repair surgery were enrolled, with 22 in the low-curvature titanium mesh group and 45 in the normal-curvature titanium mesh group. Both before and after propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, the hospital stay for the low-curvature titanium mesh group was significantly shorter than that for the normal-curvature mesh group (Before: 9.14 ± 2.64 vs. 12.51 ± 4.15, P = 0.001; After: 9.44 ± 2.83 vs. 12.13 ± 4.40, P = 0.048). The low-curvature group exhibited lower overall hospitalization costs than the normal-curvature group (Before: 23500. ± 900. vs. 24,900. ± 1,100., P < 0.001; After: 23,300. ± 800. vs. 24,100. ± 1,000., P = 0.026). Moreover, satisfaction with molding (Before: 4.23 ± 0.75 vs. 3.18 ± 0.81, P = 0.001; After: 4.13 ± 0.72 vs. 3.25 ± 0.78, P < 0.001), Karnofsky's Performance Status score (Before: 93.32 ± 1.67 vs. 90.38 ± 3.50, P = 0.001; After: 93.56 ± 1.75 vs. 91.00 ± 3.78, P < 0.001), and Quality of Life score (Before: 52.95 ± 2.13 vs. 50.18 ± 3.54, P = 0.001; After: 53.31 ± 2.12 vs. 50.38 ± 4.23, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the low-curvature titanium mesh group than the normal-curvature titanium mesh group.

Conclusions: Applying low-curvature titanium mesh for skull repair effectively shortens the hospital stay, reduces overall hospitalization costs,enhances patient satisfaction with surgical modeling, and improves the postoperative functional status and quality of life of patients undergoing neurosurgery. These advantages warrant further clinical promotion.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

低曲率和正常曲率钛网在颅骨成形术中的比较临床影响：对患者结果的回顾性分析。

目的：探讨低曲率钛网和正常曲率钛网两种颅骨成形术的临床应用。方法：回顾性收集2021年1月至2022年12月行颅骨缺损修复手术患者的临床资料。比较分析两种手术入路的临床结果。结果：共纳入67例颅骨缺损修复手术患者，其中低曲率钛网组22例，正常曲率钛网组45例。倾向评分匹配（PSM）分析前后，低曲率钛网组住院时间均显著短于正常曲率钛网组(术前：9.14±2.64∶12.51±4.15,P = 0.001；术后：9.44±2.83 vs. 12.13±4.40,P = 0.048)。低曲度组总体住院费用低于正常曲度组(术前：23500±900；Vs. 24900±1100。， p p = 0.026)。成型满意度(前：4.23±0.75 vs. 3.18±0.81,P = 0.001；术后：4.13±0.72 vs. 3.25±0.78,P P = 0.001；后:93.56±1.75和91.00±3.78,P P = 0.001;术后：53.31±2.12 vs. 50.38±4.23,P = 0.001)，低曲率钛网组明显高于正常曲率钛网组。结论：应用低曲率钛网进行颅骨修复可有效缩短住院时间，降低整体住院费用，提高患者对手术造型的满意度，改善神经外科患者术后功能状态和生活质量。这些优势值得进一步的临床推广。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

11.10%

发文量

1872

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.