Literature DB >> 29905512

Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer.

Jesús A Morales-Gómez, Everardo Garcia-Estrada, Jorge E Leos-Bortoni, Miriam Delgado-Brito, Luis E Flores-Huerta, Adriana A De La Cruz-Arriaga, Luis J Torres-Díaz, Ángel R Martínez-Ponce de León.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVECranioplasty implants should be widely available, low in cost, and customized or easy to mold during surgery. Although autologous bone remains the first choice for repair, it cannot always be used due to infection, fragmentation, bone resorption, or other causes, which led to use of synthetic alternatives. The most frequently used allogenic material for cranial reconstructions with long-term results is polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). Three-dimensional printing technology has allowed the production of increasingly popular customized, prefabricated implants. The authors describe their method and experience with a customized PMMA prosthesis using a precise and reliable low-cost implant that can be customized at any institution with open-source or low-cost software and desktop 3D printers.METHODSA review of 22 consecutive patients undergoing CT-based, low-cost, customized PMMA cranioplasty over a 1-year period at a university teaching hospital was performed. Preoperative data included patient sex and age; CT modeling parameters, including the surface area of the implant (defect); reason for craniectomy; date(s) of injury and/or resections; the complexity of the defect; and associated comorbidities. Postoperative data included morbiditiy and complications, such as implant exposure, infection, hematoma, seroma, implant failure, and seizures; the cost of the implant; and cosmetic outcome.RESULTSIndications for the primary craniectomy were traumatic brain injury (16, 73%), tumor resection (3, 14%), infection (1, 4%), and vascular (2, 9%). The median interval between previous surgery and PMMA cranioplasty was 12 months. The operation time ranged from 90 to 150 minutes (mean 126 minutes). The average cranial defect measured 65.16 cm2 (range 29.31-131.06 cm2). During the recovery period, there was no sign of infection, implant rejection, or wound dehiscence, and none of the implants had to be removed over a follow-up ranging from 1 to 6 months. The aesthetic appearance of all patients was significantly improved, and the implant fit was excellent.CONCLUSIONSThe use of a customized PMMA was associated with excellent patient, family, and surgeon satisfaction at follow-up at a fraction of the cost associated with commercially available implants. This technique could be an attractive option to all patients undergoing cranioplasty.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D printing; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; PMMA = polymethylmethacrylate; TBI = traumatic brain injury; cranioplasty; custom polymethylmethacrylate mold; surgical technique

Year:  2018        PMID: 29905512     DOI: 10.3171/2017.12.JNS172574

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  9 in total

Review 1.  Characterisation of Selected Materials in Medical Applications.

Authors:  Kacper Kroczek; Paweł Turek; Damian Mazur; Jacek Szczygielski; Damian Filip; Robert Brodowski; Krzysztof Balawender; Łukasz Przeszłowski; Bogumił Lewandowski; Stanisław Orkisz; Artur Mazur; Grzegorz Budzik; Józef Cebulski; Mariusz Oleksy
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 4.967

Review 2.  Nanoscale and Macroscale Scaffolds with Controlled-Release Polymeric Systems for Dental Craniomaxillofacial Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Saeed Ur Rahman; Malvika Nagrath; Sasikumar Ponnusamy; Praveen R Arany
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  A small 3D-printing model of macroadenomas for endoscopic endonasal surgery.

Authors:  Xing Huang; Zhen Liu; Xuan Wang; Xu-Dong Li; Kai Cheng; Yan Zhou; Xiao-Bing Jiang
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.107

4.  Cranioplasty with three-dimensional customised mould for polymethylmethacrylate implant: a series of 16 consecutive patients with cost-effectiveness consideration.

Authors:  Erasmo Barros da Silva Júnior; Afonso Henrique de Aragão; Marcelo de Paula Loureiro; Caetano Silva Lobo; Ana Flávia Oliveti; Rafael Martinelli de Oliveira; Ricardo Ramina
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2021-02-06

5.  Calcium Phosphate Cement "Space Fill-in" Augmentation in Autologous Cranioplasty for Large Cranial Defect: Additional Technical Consideration and Its Long-term Follow-up.

Authors:  Ichiro Takumi; Masataka Akimoto
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Augmented reality-assisted craniofacial reconstruction in skull base lesions - an innovative technique for single-step resection and cranioplasty in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Juergen Grauvogel; Peter Christoph Reinacher; Christine Steiert; Simon Phillipp Behringer; Luisa Mona Kraus; Marco Bissolo; Theo Demerath; Juergen Beck
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 2.800

7.  Early experience with patient-specific low-cost 3D-printed polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty implants in a lower-middle-income-country: Technical note and economic analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad Ashraf; Nabeel Choudhary; Usman Ahmad Kamboh; Muhammad Asif Raza; Kashif Ali Sultan; Naseeruddin Ghulam; Syed Shahzad Hussain; Naveed Ashraf
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2022-06-23

Review 8.  Low-Cost Cranioplasty-A Systematic Review of 3D Printing in Medicine.

Authors:  Wojciech Czyżewski; Jakub Jachimczyk; Zofia Hoffman; Michał Szymoniuk; Jakub Litak; Marcin Maciejewski; Krzysztof Kura; Radosław Rola; Kamil Torres
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.748

9.  Superimposing Pre-Cranioplasty on Pre-Craniectomy Images to Gauge Feasibility of Early Cranioplasty: A Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Yu-Ying Wu; Han-Jung Chen; Kang Lu; I-Fan Lin
Journal:  Neurotrauma Rep       Date:  2022-08-22
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.