Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2021; 18(02): 99-104
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729679
Original Article

Low-Cost Customized Cranioplasty with Polymethyl Methacrylate Using 3D Printer Generated Mold: An Institutional Experience and Review of Literature

Ankit Chaudhary
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Virendra Deo Sinha
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Sanjeev Chopra
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Jitendra Shekhawat
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Gaurav Jain
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Cranioplasty is performed to repair skull defects and to restore normal skull anatomy. Optimal reconstruction remains a topic of debate. Autologous bone flap is the standard option but it may not be available due to traumatic bone fractures, bone infection, and resorption. In this article, the authors presented their experience with prefabrication of precise and low-cost polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) mold using three-dimensional (3D) digital printing.

Materials and Methods A total of 30 patients underwent cranioplasty between March 2017 and September 2019 at Sawai Man Singh Medical College Jaipur, India. Preoperative data included diagnosis for which decompressive craniectomy was done and Glasgow coma scale score. Intraoperative data included operating time. Postoperative data included cosmetic outcome in the form of cranial contour and margins, complications such as infection, seroma, implant failure, wound dehiscence, and hematoma.

Results Patient age at cranioplasty ranged from 12 to 63 years with a mean age of 36.7 years. The mean operating time was 151.6 minutes (range 130–190 minutes). The mean follow-up period was 8 months (range 6–13 months). Postoperative wound dehiscence developed in one case (3.3%). Cranial contour and approximation of the margins were excellent and aesthetic appearance improved in all patients.

Conclusion Low-cost PMMA implant made by digital 3D printer mold is associated with reconstruction of the deformed skull contour giving satisfactory results to the patient and his family members, at a low cost compared with other commercially available implants. This technique could be a breakthrough in cranioplasty.

Keywords

contour - cranioplasty - customized - mold - resin


Publication History

Article published online:
11 June 2021

© 2021. Neurotrauma Society of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Dumbrigue HB, Arcuri MR, LaVelle WE, Ceynar KJ. Fabrication procedure for cranial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79 (02) 229-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lee C, Antonyshyn OM, Forrest CR. Cranioplasty: indications, technique, and early results of autogenous split skull cranial vault reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1995; 23 (03) 133-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Erdogan E, Düz B, Kocaoglu M, Izci Y, Sirin S, Timurkaynak E. The effect of cranioplasty on cerebral hemodynamics: evaluation with transcranial Doppler sonography. Neurol India 2003; 51 (04) 479-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L. et al Cranioplasty of large cranial defect at an early stage after decompressive craniectomy performed for severe head trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18 (03) 526-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beumer III J, Firtell DN, Curtis TA. Current concepts in cranioplasty. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42 (01) 67-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jordan RD, White JT, Schupper N. Technique for cranioplasty prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40 (02) 230-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Morales-Gómez JA, Garcia-Estrada E, Leos-Bortoni JE. et al Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer. J Neurosurg 2018; 130(5): 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Marchac D, Greensmith A. Long-term experience with methylmethacrylate cranioplasty in craniofacial surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 (07) 744-752 discussion 753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Roa TT. Materiales inertes. In: En Coiffman F, ed. Texto de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética, Vol. 1. Barcelona, Spain: Salvat Editores 1986
  • 10 Golz T, Graham CR, Busch LC, Wulf J, Winder RJ. Temperature elevation during simulated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cranioplasty in a cadaver model. J Clin Neurosci 2010; 17 (05) 617-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baumeister S, Peek A, Friedman A, Levin LS, Marcus JR. Management of postneurosurgical bone flap loss caused by infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (06) 195e-208e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Flannery T, McConnell RS. Cranioplasty: why throw the bone flap out. ? Br J Neurosurg 2001; 15 (06) 518-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gao LL, Rogers GF, Clune JE. et al Autologous cranial particulate bone grafting reduces the frequency of osseous defects after cranial expansion. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (02) 318-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Weber RS, Kearns DB, Smith RJ. Split calvarium cranioplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987; 113 (01) 84-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, Aydin S, Sanus GZ. Cranioplasty: review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2011; 2 (02) 162-167
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Courville CB. Cranioplasty in prehistoric times. Bull Los Angel Neuro Soc 1959; 24 (01) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Durand JL, Renier D, Marchac D. The history of cranioplasty [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1997; 42 (01) 75-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H. et al Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006; 148 (05) 535-540 discussion 540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Eppley BL. Biomechanical testing of alloplastic PMMA cranioplasty materials. J Craniofac Surg 2005; 16 (01) 140-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lee SC, Wu CT, Lee ST, Chen PJ. Cranioplasty using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. J Clin Neurosci 2009; 16 (01) 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 D’Urso PS, Earwaker WJ, Barker TM. et al Custom cranioplasty using stereolithography and acrylic. Br J Plast Surg 2000; 53 (03) 200-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goh RC, Chang CN, Lin CL, Lo LJ. Customised fabricated implants after previous failed cranioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (09) 1479-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lambrecht JT, Brix F. Individual skull model fabrication for craniofacial surgery. Cleft Palate J 1990; 27 (04) 382-385 discussion 386–387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Piedra MP, Ragel BT, Dogan A, Coppa ND, Delashaw JB. Timing of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. J Neurosurg 2013; 118 (01) 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Walcott BP, Kwon CS, Sheth SA. et al Predictors of cranioplasty complications in stroke and trauma patients. J Neurosurg 2013; 118 (04) 757-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hong KS, Kang SH, Lee JB, Chung YG, Lee HK, Chung HS. Cranioplasty with the porous polyethylene implant (Medpor) for large cranial defect. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2005; 38: 96-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D. Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 2010; 112 (05) 1120-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 26 (06) E9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Klinger DR, Madden C, Beshay J, White J, Gambrell K, Rickert K. Autologous and acrylic cranioplasty: a review of 10 years and 258 cases. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (3-4) e525-e530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lee L, Ker J, Quah BL, Chou N, Choy D, Yeo TT. A retrospective analysis and review of an institution’s experience with the complications of cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg 2013; 27 (05) 629-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kim BJ, Hong KS, Park KJ, Park DH, Chung YG, Kang SH. Customized cranioplasty implants using three-dimensional printers and polymethyl-methacrylate casting. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2012; 52 (06) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar