Patient-specific cranioplasty, by direct and indirect additive manufacturing of biopolymers and implantable materials.
additive manufacturing
bone
craniofacial
implantable FDM filament
medical-grade materials
patient-customised prosthesis
prosthetics
reconstruction
Journal
The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS
ISSN: 1478-596X
Titre abrégé: Int J Med Robot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101250764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
19
06
2023
received:
19
09
2022
accepted:
16
08
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
6
9
2023
entrez:
6
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Autologous bones are traditionally used in surgical reconstruction of skullcap. Since patients' bones are often unavailable or cause of infections, implantable synthetic materials emerged as promising alternative. These can be shaped by different technologies, while 3D printing offers remarkable chances in terms of flexibility, accuracy, cost-saving and customizability. This study aims to evaluate strengths and limitations of the three main strategies that imply additive manufacturing for the implementation of cranial prosthesis: (i) direct printing of PLA (polylactic acid) skullcaps, mould casting of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) prosthesis using (ii) silicone mould manufactured from a 3D printed master, (iii) 3Dprinted TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) mould. All solutions achieved good geometric accuracy and excellent mechanical resistance. Direct printing of the PLA resulted in the fastest strategy, followed by PMMA casting in a silicone mould. The use of silicone was overall more advantageous, due to lower costs and the possibility of sterilization by using autoclaving.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Autologous bones are traditionally used in surgical reconstruction of skullcap. Since patients' bones are often unavailable or cause of infections, implantable synthetic materials emerged as promising alternative. These can be shaped by different technologies, while 3D printing offers remarkable chances in terms of flexibility, accuracy, cost-saving and customizability.
METHODS
METHODS
This study aims to evaluate strengths and limitations of the three main strategies that imply additive manufacturing for the implementation of cranial prosthesis: (i) direct printing of PLA (polylactic acid) skullcaps, mould casting of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) prosthesis using (ii) silicone mould manufactured from a 3D printed master, (iii) 3Dprinted TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane) mould.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All solutions achieved good geometric accuracy and excellent mechanical resistance. Direct printing of the PLA resulted in the fastest strategy, followed by PMMA casting in a silicone mould.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of silicone was overall more advantageous, due to lower costs and the possibility of sterilization by using autoclaving.
Substances chimiques
Polymethyl Methacrylate
9011-14-7
Polyesters
0
Silicones
0
Biopolymers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2568Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
De La Peña A, De LA Peña - Brambilia J, Pérez J, De La Torre, Ochoa M, Gallardo GJ. Low - cost customized cranioplastiy using a 3D digital printing model: a case report. 3D Printing in Medicine. 2018;4:1-28.
Femig N. The associated benefits of a cranioplasty on rehabilitation: a review of the literature. Br J Neurosci Nurs. 2020;16(6):266-271. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjnn.2020.16.6.266
Basu B, Bhaskar N, Vidushi Sharma SB, et al. Evaluation of implant properties, safety profile and clinical efficacy of patient-specific acrylic prosthesis in cranioplasty using 3D binderjet printed cranium model: a pilot study. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;85:132-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.12.020
Koller M, Trave D, Shok G, Murphy S, Kiaei S, Samadani U. A retrospective descriptive study of cranioplasty failure rates and contributing factors in novel 3D printed calcium phosphate implants compared to traditional materials. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):14. article number 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-020-00066-5
Pape HP, Christoph H, Evans A, Kobbe P. Autologous bone graft: properties and techniques. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24((Suppl 1)):S36-S40. https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0b013e3181cec4a1
Lethaus B, Bloebaum M, Koper D, Poort-Ter LM, Kessler P. Interval cranioplasty with patient-specific implants and autogenous bone grafts--success and cost analysis. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2014;42(8):1948-1951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.08.006
Goutam M, Giriyapura C, Mishra SK, Gupta S. Titanium allergy: a literature review. Indian J Dermatol. 2014;59(6):630-647. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.143526
Marchac D, Greensmith A. Long-term experience with methylmethacrylate cranioplasty in craniofacial surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2008;61(7):744-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.10.055
El-Ghani A, Wael MA. Cranioplasty with polymethyl methacrylate implant: solutions of pitfalls. Egypt J Neurosurg. 2018;33(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-018-0002-y
De Souza Leao R, Raposo Souto Maior J, Aparecido De Araújo Lemos C, et al. Complications with PMMA compared with other materials used in cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32(0):e31. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0031
Brandicourt P, Delanoé F, Roux FE, Jalbert F, Brauge D, Lauwers F. Reconstruction of cranial vault defect with polyetheretherketone implants. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:783-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.049
Binhammer A, Jakubowski J, Antonyshyn O, Binhammer P. Comparative cost-effectiveness of cranioplasty implants. Plastic Surg. 2020;28(1):29-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550319880922
Jabar Nazimi A, Md Yusoff M, Nordin R, Nabil S. Use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in orbital floor fracture reconstruction - a case for concern. J Oral and Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2015;27(4):536-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2014.10.006
Baldia M, Joseph M, Sharma S, et al. Customized cost-effective polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty: a cosmetic comparison with other low-cost methods of cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir. 2022;164(3):655-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05121-0
Scerrati A, Travaglini F, Gelmi CAE, et al. Patient specific Polymethyl methacrylate customized cranioplasty using 3D printed silicone moulds: technical note. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2022;18:e2353.
Gopal S, Rudrappa S, Sekar A, Preethish - Kumar V, Masapu D. Customized and cost - effective 3D printed mold for cranioplasty: India’s first single center experience. Neurol India. 2021;69(3):611-617. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.319221
Hay JA, Smayra T, dMoussa R. Customized polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty implants using 3 - dimensional printed polylactic acid molds: technical note with 2 illustrative cases. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:971-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.007
Cheng C-H, Chuang H-Y, Lin H-L, Liu C-L, Yao C-H. Surgical results of cranioplasty using three-dimensional printing technology. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018;168:118-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.03.004
Barros Da Silva Júnior E, De Aragão AH, De Paula Loureiro M, et al. Cranioplasty with three-dimensional customised mould for polymethylmethacrylate implant: a series of 16 consecutive patients with cost-effectiveness consideration. 3D Printing in Medicine. 2021;7(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-021-00096-7
Schön SN, Skalicky N, Sharma N, Zumofen DW, Thieringer FM. 3D-Printer-Assisted patient-specific polymethyl methacrylate cranioplasty: a case series of 16 consecutive patients. World Neurosurgery. 2021;148:e356-e362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.138
Kim BJ, HongParkParkChungKang KSKJDHYGSH. Customized cranioplasty implants using three-dimensional printers and polymethyl-methacrylate casting. J Kor Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52(6):541-546. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2012.52.6.541
Zauba. [Online]. https://www.zauba.com/import-resomer-l-206-s-hs-code.html
Shea GKH, Wu KLK, Li IWS, et al. A review of the manufacturing process and infection rate of 3D-printed models and guides sterilized by hydrogen peroxide plasma and utilized intra-operatively. 3D Printing in Medicine. 2020;6(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-020-00061-w
Di Prima M, Coburn J, Hwang D, Kelly J, Khairuzzaman A, Ricles L. Additively Manufactured Medical Products - the FDA Perspective. Vol 2. 3D Printing in Medicine; 2016.
3DP World. [Online]. https://3dpworld.it/prodotto/z-support-premium/?gclid=CjwKCAjwwo-WBhAMEiwAV4dybRhbS-905T2kWUG0NZaPZ7BDJiIQ4PAiO5zeYhFt0P-AiSx7xgksExoC1SAQAvD_BwE
talent. [Online]. https://it.talent.com/salary?job=tecnico+informatico
servizi per utenze. [Online]. https://serviziperutenze.it/pun-aggiornamento-dicembre-2020-prezzo-mercato-allingrosso/
westcmr. [Online]. https://www.westcmr.com/43-1280-wb2-43-1280
Savaris M, Dos Santos V, Brandalise RN. Influence of different sterilization processes on the properties of commercial poly(lactic acid). Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;69:661-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.031
Rainer A, Centola M, Spadaccio C, et al. Comparative study of different techniques for the sterilization of poly-L-lactide electrospun microfibers: effectiveness vs. material degradation. Int J Artif Organs. 2010;33(2):76-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139881003300203
Aguado-Maestro I, De Frutos-Serna M, González-Nava A, Merino-De Santos AB, García-Alonso M. Are the common sterilization methods completely effective for our in-house 3D printed biomodels and surgical guides? I. Injury. 2021;52(6):1341-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.014
M’Bengue MS, Mesnard T, Chai F, et al. Evaluation of a medical grade thermoplastic Polyurethane for the manufacture of an implantable medical device: the impact of FDM 3D-printing and gamma sterilization. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(2):456-469. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15020456
Wulf J, Busch LC, Golz T, et al. CAD generated mold for preoperative implant fabrication in cranioplasty. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2005;111:608-610.
Vogels RR, Lambertz A, Schuster P, et al. Biocompatibility and biomechanical analysis of elastic TPU threads as new suture material. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017;105(1):99-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33531