Retrospective cohort study compares 4D-printed bioactive PEEK with conventional PEEK, finding better outcomes in drainage and fluid collection.
BACKGROUND: Conventional 3D-printed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants are widely used for cranioplasty, but postoperative subgaleal fluid collection and temporal contour deformity remain concerns. This study compared early clinical and radiological outcomes between 4D-printed bioactive PEEK implants and conventional 3D-printed PEEK implants. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 62 adult patients undergoing unilateral cranioplasty, including 31 treated with 4D-printed bioactive PEEK implants and 31 treated with conventional 3D-printed PEEK implants. Outcomes included drainage duration, total drainage volume, subgaleal fluid collection at follow-up, temporal muscle collapse, cosmetic satisfaction, postoperative complications, and measurement reproducibility. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate factors associated with 3-month subgaleal fluid collection volume. RESULTS: The 4D-PEEK group had lower total drainage volume (97 mL [82-120] vs. 314 mL [227-337], P < 0.001) and shorter drainage duration (1 day [1-1] vs. 3 days [2-3], P < 0.001). Subgaleal fluid collection was lower in the 4D-PEEK group at 1 month (0 mL [0-2] vs. 14 mL [9-21], P < 0.001) and 3 months (0 mL [0-2] vs. 7 mL [3-12], P < 0.001). Radiographically detectable fluid collection at 3 months occurred in 4 patients (13%) and 19 patients (61%), respectively (P < 0.001). Temporal muscle collapse was observed in 1 patient (3.2%) in the 4D-PEEK group and 7 patients (23%) in the 3D-PEEK group (P = 0.053). Implant type remained independently associated with 3-month fluid collection volume (adjusted B = -5.4 mL; 95% CI, -7.8 to -3.0; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 4D-printed bioactive PEEK implants were associated with reduced postoperative drainage and less persistent subgaleal fluid collection. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: