Low-cost customized cranioplasty using a 3D digital printing model: a case report.

Abel De La Peña, Javier De La Peña-Brambila, Juan Pérez-De La Torre, Miguel Ochoa, Guillermo J Gallardo
Author Information
  1. Abel De La Peña: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Plastic Surgery Institute, Mexico City, Mexico.
  2. Javier De La Peña-Brambila: 2Maxillofacial Surgeon, PhD, Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde", Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico.
  3. Juan Pérez-De La Torre: 3Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde", Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico.
  4. Miguel Ochoa: 4Neurosurgeon, Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde", Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico.
  5. Guillermo J Gallardo: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Plastic Surgery Institute, Mexico City, Mexico.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cranial defects usually occur after trauma, neurosurgical procedures like decompressive craniotomy, tumour resections, infection and congenital defects. The purpose of cranial vault repair is to protect the underlying brain tissue, to reduce any localized pain and patient anxiety, and improve cranial aesthetics. Cranioplasty is a frequent neurosurgical procedure achieved with the aid of cranial prosthesis made from materials such as: titanium, autologous bone, ceramics and polymers. Prosthesis production is often costly and requires complex intraoperative processes. Implant customized manufacturing for craniopathies allows for a precise and anatomical reconstruction in a shorter operating time compared to other conventional techniques. We present a simple, low-cost method for prosthesis manufacturing that ensures surgical success.
CASE PRESENTATION: Two patients with Cranial defects are presented to describe the three-dimensional (3D) printing technique for cranial reconstruction. A digital prosthesis model is designed and manufactured with the aid of a 3D computed tomography. Both the data of large sized Cranial defects and the prosthesis are transferred to a 3D printer to obtain a physical model in poly-lactic acid which is then used in a laboratory to cast the final customised prosthesis in polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
CONCLUSIONS: A precise compliance of the prosthesis to the osseous defect was achieved. At the 6 month postoperative follow-up no complications were observed i.e. rejection, toxicity, local or systemic infection, and the aesthetic change was very significant and satisfactory. Customized 3D PMMA prosthesis offers cost advantages, a great aesthetic result, reduced operating time and good biocompatibility.

Keywords

References

  1. Ghana Med J. 2006 Mar;40(1):18-21 [PMID: 17299559]
  2. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008 Jul;61(7):744-52; discussion 753 [PMID: 18474454]
  3. Mil Med. 1994 Jun;159(6):466-9 [PMID: 7984309]
  4. Skull Base Surg. 1995;5(2):109-16 [PMID: 17171184]
  5. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2004 Feb;32(1):5-9 [PMID: 14729042]
  6. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;8:Doc08 [PMID: 22073101]
  7. J Craniofac Surg. 2003 Mar;14(2):144-53 [PMID: 12621283]
  8. J Maxillofac Surg. 1985 Feb;13(1):2-8 [PMID: 3856619]
  9. Med Sci Monit. 2012 Jan;18(1):MT1-6 [PMID: 22207125]
  10. World Neurosurg. 2015 Feb;83(2):176-80 [PMID: 24909393]
  11. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 Jul;22(4):1236-9 [PMID: 21772210]
  12. Neurosurgery. 1997 Jul;41(1):305-6; discussion 306-9 [PMID: 9218324]
  13. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Jan;21(1):79-82 [PMID: 20061970]
  14. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:3357-60 [PMID: 21097234]
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 1978 Aug;40(2):230-3 [PMID: 278842]
  16. Neurosurgery. 2003 Mar;52(3):591-6; discussion 595-6 [PMID: 12590683]
  17. J Craniofac Surg. 2007 May;18(3):526-32 [PMID: 17538313]
  18. J Clin Neurosci. 2010 May;17(5):617-22 [PMID: 20189395]
  19. J Craniofac Surg. 2003 Nov;14(6):819-32 [PMID: 14600623]
  20. J Clin Neurosci. 2009 Jan;16(1):56-63 [PMID: 19046734]
  21. Surg Neurol Int. 2013 Oct 08;4:136 [PMID: 24232827]
  22. Surg Neurol. 1974 Sep;2(5):339-41 [PMID: 4851208]
  23. Neurol India. 2003 Dec;51(4):479-81 [PMID: 14742926]
  24. AORN J. 2001 Nov;74(5):648-54; quiz 655-6, 658-62 [PMID: 11725443]
  25. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1995 Jun;23 (3):133-42 [PMID: 7673439]
  26. J Craniofac Surg. 2016 Jun;27(4):943-9 [PMID: 27192643]
  27. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;70(2):e169-76 [PMID: 22260919]
  28. J Prosthet Dent. 1979 Jul;42(1):67-77 [PMID: 379310]
  29. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep;63(9):1479-84 [PMID: 19766072]
  30. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Feb;79(2):229-31 [PMID: 9513113]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0prosthesiscranial3DdefectsCranialreconstructionprintingPMMAneurosurgicalinfectionvaultCranioplastyachievedaidcustomizedmanufacturingpreciseoperatingtimedigitalmodelaestheticcostBACKGROUND:usuallyoccurtraumaprocedureslikedecompressivecraniotomytumourresectionscongenitalpurposerepairprotectunderlyingbraintissuereducelocalizedpainpatientanxietyimproveaestheticsfrequentproceduremadematerialsas:titaniumautologousboneceramicspolymersProsthesisproductionoftencostlyrequirescomplexintraoperativeprocessesImplantcraniopathiesallowsanatomicalshortercomparedconventionaltechniquespresentsimplelow-costmethodensuressurgicalsuccessCASEPRESENTATION:Twopatientspresenteddescribethree-dimensionaltechniquedesignedmanufacturedcomputedtomographydatalargesizedtransferredprinterobtainphysicalpoly-lacticacidusedlaboratorycastfinalcustomisedpolymethylmethacrylateCONCLUSIONS:complianceosseousdefect6 monthpostoperativefollow-upcomplicationsobservedierejectiontoxicitylocalsystemicchangesignificantsatisfactoryCustomizedoffersadvantagesgreatresultreducedgoodbiocompatibilityLow-costcranioplastyusingmodel:casereportimplantLowPolymethylmethacrylateresinSkull

Similar Articles

Cited By (22)