ClinicalTrials.Veeva

Menu

Evaluation of Cranioplasty Using Native Bone Autograft Versus Synthetic Bone Allograft

L

LifeBridge Health

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Surgical Procedure, Unspecified

Treatments

Device: Synthetic Bone Allograft (ClearFit)
Other: Autograft

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Identifiers

NCT04855175
1682010

Details and patient eligibility

About

Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is a common neurosurgical emergency that may arise from several conditions, which cause an intracranial mass effect. In the case of conservatively refractory ICP elevation, one viable treatment option is ICP-lowering surgery, i.e., decompressive craniectomy (DC) in which a large portion of the skull bone is removed and the dura mater opened, creating more room for the brain tissue to expand and thus reducing the ICP. A successful CP will restore the contour of the cranium, protect the brain, and ensure a natural ICP, and some patients also show neurological improvement post-CP. Thus, CP has a great potential for improving the patient's quality of life.

Bone flap resorption (BFR) implies weakening and loosening of the autologous bone flap after reimplantation and is regarded as a late CP complication involving nonunion of the bone flap with the surrounding bone margins and cavity formation in the flap itself, which eventually necessitates removal of the bone flap and a new CP using a synthetic implant. These additional operations increase costs and necessitate further hospital stays, while rendering the patient vulnerable to additional complications.

Prior research performed as part of the FDA approval process has shown the ASPCI's to be a safe and effective means of performing cranial reconstruction, the anticipated risks do not differ from the risks faced by a patient undergoing either option as they are both currently considered standards of care.

This study will evaluate the overall patient outcomes of cranial reconstruction surgery using native bone autograft as compared to using synthetic bone allograft.

Full description

Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is a common neurosurgical emergency that may arise from several conditions, which cause an intracranial mass effect. In the case of conservatively refractory ICP elevation, one viable treatment option is ICP-lowering surgery, i.e., decompressive craniectomy (DC) in which a large portion of the skull bone is removed and the dura mater opened, creating more room for the brain tissue to expand and thus reducing the ICP. In many centers, the bone flap removed in DC is customarily kept deep frozen at -70°C until reimplantation during cranioplasty (CP). The cranium is repaired during CP by returning the previously removed autologous bone flap or by placing an artificial implant in the defect area. A successful CP will restore the contour of the cranium, protect the brain, and ensure a natural ICP, and some patients also show neurological improvement post-CP1-4. Thus, CP has a great potential for improving the patient's quality of life. Although widely regarded as a routine operation, CP often involves serious complications, such as postoperative hemorrhages, surgical site infection (SSI), and, most importantly, resorption of the autologous bone flap5-8.

Bone flap resorption (BFR) implies weakening and loosening of the autologous bone flap after reimplantation and is regarded as a late CP complication involving nonunion of the bone flap with the surrounding bone margins and cavity formation in the flap itself, which eventually necessitates removal of the bone flap and a new CP using a synthetic implant. These additional operations increase costs and necessitate further hospital stays, while rendering the patient vulnerable to additional complications. The reported prevalence of BFR with autologous CPs has varied significantly, from 1.4% to 32.0%, with infection rates ranging from 4.6% to 16.4%9-12.

CP is a common procedure for cranial reconstruction in the setting of trauma, stroke, skull neoplasm, osteomyelitis, or after procedures that are approached via craniectomy such as microvascular decompression or acoustic neuroma.

Recently there have been two major areas of interest presenting in the literature. First, there have been at least 6 manuscripts published on retrospective data comparing autologous bone versus synthetic prosthetic for CP13-18. Each has shown benefit for synthetic prosthetics. However, the community is resistant to implement a treatment pattern where synthetic bone is a "first line" choice for CP. Therefore, a prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to understand with high confidence the option that is most beneficial for patients.

Prior research performed as part of the FDA approval process has shown the ASPCI's to be a safe and effective means of performing cranial reconstruction, the anticipated risks do not differ from the risks faced by a patient undergoing either option as they are both currently considered standards of care.

This study will evaluate the overall patient outcomes of cranial reconstruction surgery using native bone autograft as compared to using synthetic bone allograft.

Enrollment

1 patient

Sex

All

Ages

18 to 99 years old

Volunteers

No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

  • All adult patients being considered for CP surgery by the investigating physician at the Life Bridge Health-Sinai Hospital of Baltimore
  • Able to read and speak English, or have LAR who reads and speaks English
  • Patients who need cranial reconstruction

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients affected by comminuted skull fractures,
  • Patients affected by osteomyelitis,
  • Patients with skull neoplasm and therefore not be candidates for autologous CP
  • Patients who would need to be allocated to one group over the other due to clinical presentation

Trial design

Primary purpose

Treatment

Allocation

Randomized

Interventional model

Parallel Assignment

Masking

None (Open label)

1 participants in 2 patient groups

Autograft group
Active Comparator group
Description:
The autologous group will receive bone harvested from the patient's own body
Treatment:
Other: Autograft
Allograft group (ClearFit)
Active Comparator group
Description:
The allograft group will receive a synthetic bone known as ClearFit
Treatment:
Device: Synthetic Bone Allograft (ClearFit)

Trial contacts and locations

1

Loading...

Central trial contact

William Ashley, MD, PhD, MBA

Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical trials

Find clinical trialsTrials by location
© Copyright 2026 Veeva Systems