| Literature DB >> 32158883 |
Alessandro Borghi1,2, Federica Ruggiero2, Maik Tenhagen1,2, Silvia Schievano1,2, Allan Ponniah3, David Dunaway1,2, Justine O'Hara2, Juling Ong2, Jonathan A Britto4.
Abstract
Arhinia (congenital absence of the nose) is a congenital rare disease, which has been reported in less than 60 cases in the literature. It consists of the absence of external nose, nasal cavities and olfactory apparatus and is generally associated with midline defects, microphthalmia, blepharophimosis and hypotelorism. Aesthetic problems as well as associated functional anomalies can potentially impact on the development and interpersonal relationships of the child at a later stage in life. Arhinia requires extensive management in early life in order to ensure airway patency and protection by means of tracheostomy, and to allow adequate pharyngeal and feeding function to the child. Aesthetic issues are managed with reconstructive surgery or an external prosthesis. There is no previous description in Literature of internal prosthetic devices used to sequentially shape soft tissues in complex reconstruction. We present an example of design and manufacturing of a bespoke nose implant produced by means of 3D printing and directly assessed on-table by means of 3D surface scanning.Entities:
Keywords: 3D priting; 3D scanning; Congenital arhinia; Patient specific implant
Year: 2019 PMID: 32158883 PMCID: PMC7061611 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2019.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JPRAS Open ISSN: 2352-5878
Figure 1A) 3D bone reconstruction from CT scan of the patient at age 2, front view and B) side view C) 3D printed replica of the patient skull age 2; a nose implant was moulded with plasticine by an expert craniofacial surgeon; D) 3D scan of the skull with nose implant superimposed on the patient skull; E) the nose implant volume separated from the skull and ready for manufacturing; F) the second nose implant for the second procedure.
Figure 4A) Picture of the patient looking at the implant prototype before the first procedure aged 2; B) picture of the patient three months after the procedure aged 2; C) picture of the patient two months after the second procedure aged 4.
Figure 2A) 3D reconstruction of the patient soft tissues at age 2 (top) and age 4 (bottom); B) post-op on-Table 3D scan superimposed on the 3D reconstruction at age 2 (top) and age 4 (bottom); C) sagittal cross section of the patient skull showing the soft tissue (green line), the on-Table 3D scan (red line) and the implant (blue) at age 2 (top) and age 4 (bottom). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Figure 3A) Pre-op on-Table 3D scan of the patient before the first procedure: frontal (top) and lateral (bottom) view; B) Post-op on-Table 3D scan of the patient after the first procedure: frontal (top) and lateral (bottom) view C) Pre-op 3D picture of the patient before the second procedure: frontal (top) and lateral (bottom) view; D) Post-op on-Table 3D scan of the patient after the second procedure: frontal (top) and lateral (bottom) view; E) Follow up 3D picture of the patient at 2 months after the second procedure: frontal (top) and lateral (bottom) view; F) surface difference between pre-op and post-op 3D scans at the first procedure; E) surface difference between pre-op and post-op 3D scans at the second procedure.