Tue, May 19, 2026
Volume 11 - Continuous Publishing
Iran J Neurosurg 2025, 11 - Continuous Publishing: 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Modaenama M, Mokhtari K. Recurrent Epidural and Subgaleal Effusion After PatientSpecific PEEK Cranioplasty as an Allergic Reaction: A TwoCase Report. Iran J Neurosurg 2025; 11 : 25
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-520-en.html
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-520-en.html
1- Guilan Road Trauma Research Center,Trauma Institute, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. , Morteza_Moddaeinama@gums.ac.ir
2- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science and Technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Science and Technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract: (52 Views)
Background and Importance: Patient-specific polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants are increasingly used in cranioplasty due to their biocompatibility, radiolucency, and favorable cosmetic outcomes. However, postoperative complications such as fluid collections remain a clinical concern.
Case Presentation: We describe two male patients with severe traumatic brain injury who underwent bilateral decompressive craniectomy followed by delayed cranioplasty using custom-made PEEK implants. Both patients developed recurrent epidural and subgaleal effusions during follow-up. The first case was successfully managed conservatively with aspiration, corticosteroid therapy, and compressive bandaging. The second case developed progressive effusion resistant to conservative management, ultimately requiring implant removal and reconstruction with a titanium mesh, which resolved the complication. Although PEEK implants offer significant advantages in cranial reconstruction, they may be associated with recurrent effusion. Conservative management may be sufficient in some cases; however, persistent or refractory effusions may necessitate implant removal. Careful follow-up is essential for early detection and management of such complications.
Conclusion: Although PEEK implants offer significant advantages in cranial reconstruction, they may be associated with recurrent effusion. Conservative management may be sufficient in some cases; however, persistent or refractory effusions may necessitate implant removal. Careful followup is essential for early detection and management of such complications.
Case Presentation: We describe two male patients with severe traumatic brain injury who underwent bilateral decompressive craniectomy followed by delayed cranioplasty using custom-made PEEK implants. Both patients developed recurrent epidural and subgaleal effusions during follow-up. The first case was successfully managed conservatively with aspiration, corticosteroid therapy, and compressive bandaging. The second case developed progressive effusion resistant to conservative management, ultimately requiring implant removal and reconstruction with a titanium mesh, which resolved the complication. Although PEEK implants offer significant advantages in cranial reconstruction, they may be associated with recurrent effusion. Conservative management may be sufficient in some cases; however, persistent or refractory effusions may necessitate implant removal. Careful follow-up is essential for early detection and management of such complications.
Conclusion: Although PEEK implants offer significant advantages in cranial reconstruction, they may be associated with recurrent effusion. Conservative management may be sufficient in some cases; however, persistent or refractory effusions may necessitate implant removal. Careful followup is essential for early detection and management of such complications.
Article number: 25
Keywords: Cranioplasty, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Epidural effusion, Subgaleal effusion, Decompressive craniectomy, Titanium mesh
Type of Study: Case Series |
Subject:
Neurotrauma
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © The Author(s);
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
