Search

The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the osteosynthesis material–related morbidity rates of third-generation (3.0) slotplates, and to compare those with the previously researched second-generation (2.0) slotplates. In the 2.0 slotplate design, there were additional tabs in line with the vertical slotted screw hole; in between these tabs, the additional locking screw was placed. In the 3.0 slotplates, these tabs were replaced by a full screw hole for the locking screw, and the 3.0 slotplates are slightly broader than the 2.0 slotplates. Osteosynthesis material−related morbidity rates after Le Fort I−type, zygoma-valgisation, and chin osteotomies were assessed in a cohort receiving 3.0 slotplates in a tertiary care centre and compared to a previously analysed cohort receiving 2.0 slotplates in the same tertiary care centre. Medical records of 77 patients (101 surgeries) receiving 3.0 slotplates were reviewed. Plate infection and plate removal rates were low in the 3.0 slotplate group (2.6% (p = 0.123) and 3.9% (p = 0.103), respectively). No delayed union or non-union occurred in the 3.0 slotplate group. Comparing the morbidity rates with the 2.0 slotplate cohort did not yield any significant differences. Although there was a tendency towards better outcomes with 3.0 slotplates compared to the 2.0 slotplates, the outcome differences did not reach statistical significance.

Background Various studies have investigated the load-bearing capacity of patient-specific cranial implants. However, little attention has been given to the evaluation of the design of ceramic-titanium (CeTi) implants. Methods A biomechanical evaluation of 3 patient-specific cranial implants was performed using finite element analysis. Results The results of the analyses allowed the identification of the implant regions as well as the magnitudes of the maximum stresses on, and displacements along, these regions after traumatic impact. The analyses also showed that polyether ether ketone cranial implants offer inferior brain and neurocranial protection due to their high flexibility and local peak stresses at the bone-screw interface. In contrast, CeTi implants were able to evenly distribute the stresses along the interface and thus reduced the risk of neurocranial fracture. The scaffold structure at the border of these implants reduced stress shielding and enhanced bone ingrowth. Moreover, brain injuries were less likely to occur, as the CeTi implant exhibits limited deflection. Conclusions From the finite element analyses, CeTi cranial implants appear less likely to induce calvarial fractures with a better potential to protect the brain under impact loads.