Literature DB >> 12218793

Craniofacial reconstruction with computer-generated HTR patient-matched implants: use in primary bony tumor excision.

Barry L Eppley1.   

Abstract

The aim of this clinical series is to report the effectiveness and safety of using computer-generated alloplastic hard tissue replacement (HTR) implants for the reconstruction of large defects of the cranio-orbital region when combined with simultaneous bone tumor excision. Seven patients who had large nonmalignant bony lesions of the anterior cranial vault and orbit underwent simultaneous bony excision and reconstruction with preoperatively fabricated custom alloplastic implants. Preoperatively, a 3D computed tomography (CT) scan was obtained from which an anatomical model was fabricated. On the anatomical model, the predicted amount of bone excision was performed. The defect in the model was then used to create an alloplastic (HTR polymer) implant for reconstruction and surgical placement. At the time of surgery, the implant was secured into position with either metal or resorbable plates and screws. In cases where the frontal sinus was in proximity to the implant, it was either cranialized and covered with a pericranial flap or obliterated with hydroxyapatite cement. All computer-generated implants required some modification intraoperatively due to a larger amount of bony excision than was preoperatively planned. This was accomplished by modifying the sterile back-up of the implant as an addition to the original implant or completing reconstruction of the bony defect with hydroxyapatite cement. All patients have healed uneventfully with a minimum of 1 year follow-up (average, 2.6 years). In all cases, excellent contours have been maintained and all patients have remained infection-free. In the management of large benign bony tumors of the cranio-orbital region, simultaneous reconstruction with custom implants fabricated from porous, hydrophilic HTR polymer can be preoperatively fabricated based on an estimate of the subsequent bony defect. The successful use of this approach depends on a favorable tissue quality of the recipient site, a generous preoperative estimate of the amount of bone that will be resected so that the implant is adequate, intraoperative techniques of expanding the implant reconstruction, and intraoperative methods to assure a partitioning of the implant from the frontal sinus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12218793     DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200209000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  18 in total

1.  Review of bone substitutes.

Authors:  Landon S Pryor; Earl Gage; Claude-Jean Langevin; Fernando Herrera; Andrew D Breithaupt; Chad R Gordon; Ahmed M Afifi; James E Zins; Hal Meltzer; Amanda Gosman; Steve R Cohen; Ralph Holmes
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2009-10

Review 2.  Clinical application of artificial bone in the maxillofacial region.

Authors:  Hideto Saijo; Ung-il Chung; Kazuyo Igawa; Yoshiyuki Mori; Daichi Chikazu; Mitsuyoshi Iino; Tsuyoshi Takato
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 1.731

3.  Maxillofacial reconstruction using custom-made artificial bones fabricated by inkjet printing technology.

Authors:  Hideto Saijo; Kazuyo Igawa; Yuki Kanno; Yoshiyuki Mori; Kayoko Kondo; Koutaro Shimizu; Shigeki Suzuki; Daichi Chikazu; Mitsuki Iino; Masahiro Anzai; Nobuo Sasaki; Ung-il Chung; Tsuyoshi Takato
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 1.731

4.  Fracture of a HTR-PMI cranioplastic implant after severe TBI.

Authors:  Antonio López González; Pedro Pérez Borredá; Rebeca Conde Sardón
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Cranioplasty with custom made alloplastic prosthetic implant: A case report.

Authors:  Lokendra Gupta; In Aparna; Dhanasekar Balakrishnan; Lingeshwar Deenadayalan; Puneeth Hegde; Priyanka Agarwal
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 1.337

6.  One-stage frame-guided resection and reconstruction with PEEK custom-made prostheses for predominantly intraosseous meningiomas: technical notes and a case series.

Authors:  Federico Bianchi; Francesco Signorelli; Rina Di Bonaventura; Gianluca Trevisi; Angelo Pompucci
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  Discussion on: Usefulness of an Osteotomy Template for Skull Tumorectomy and Simultaneous Skull Reconstruction.

Authors:  Chad R Gordon; Ryan J Murphy; Mehran Armand; Peter Liacouras; Jon Weingart; Judy Huang; Henry Brem; Michael Lim
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.046

8.  Spheno-orbital Reconstruction after Meningioma Resection.

Authors:  Michael B Pritz; Richard A Burgett
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2009-03

9.  Biomaterials for craniofacial reconstruction.

Authors:  Andreas Neumann; Kevin Kevenhoerster
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-03-10

Review 10.  Emerging Applications of Bedside 3D Printing in Plastic Surgery.

Authors:  Michael P Chae; Warren M Rozen; Paul G McMenamin; Michael W Findlay; Robert T Spychal; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2015-06-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.