The first experience using additive technology for cranioplasty
https://doi.org/10.56618/2071-2693_2023_15_4_22
EDN: CCSSKG
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this work is to present the immediate results of cranioplasty using additive technologies.
METHODS:
The study included 25 patients with skull defects of various locations and sizes, operated on at the Military Medical Academy named after. CM. Kirova using additive technologies from April 2022 to September 2023. Cranioplasty was performed using polymethylmethacrylate implants made from custom 3D printed molds.
RESULTS:
The principal aims of cranioplasty in this study are to restore aesthetic contour and to provide cerebral protection. However, it has been noted that a great improvement occurs in cerebral blood flow and cerebral perfusion after cranioplasty.
CONCLUSION:
The use of additive cranioplasty technologies allowed us to achieve optimal cosmetic results. The incidence of immediate complications was 16 % (n=8), but only one of them (4 %) was indirectly related to the use of this technology and was due to the patient’s individual reaction to polymethyl methacrylate.
About the Authors
K. N. Babichev
Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirova; Saint-Petersburg I.I. Dzhanelidze research institute of emergency medicine
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Konstantin N. Babichev.
St. Petersburg
A. V. Vavryn
Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirova
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey V. Vavryn.
St. Petersburg
S. S. Solovyev
Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirova
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey S. Solovyev.
St. Petersburg
D. V. Svistov
Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirova
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitriy V. Svistov.
St. Petersburg
References
1. Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: 2020 update of the decompressive Craniectomy Recommendations. Hawryluk GWJ, Rubiano AM, Totten AM, O’Reilly C, Ullman JS, Bratton SL, Chesnut R, Harris OA, Kissoon N, Shutter L, Tasker RC, Vavilala MS, Wilberger J, Wright DW, Lumba-Brown A, Ghajar J. Neurosurgery. 2020 Sep 1;87(3):427–434. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyaa278.
2. Worm P. V., Finger G., Ludwig Do Nascimento T., Rynkowski C. B., Collares M. V.M. The impact of cranioplasty on the patients’ quality of life. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2019; 47:715–719. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.040.
3. Tarr J. T., Hagan M., Zhang B., Tanna N., Andrews B. T., Lee J. C., Bradley J. P. Syndrome of the Trephined: quantitative Functional Improvement after Large Cranial Vault Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020;145:1486–1494. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006836.
4. Early cranioplasty associated with a lower rate of post-traumatic hydrocephalus after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. Ozoner B, Kilic M, Aydin L, Aydin S, Arslan YK, Musluman AM, Yilmaz A. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Aug;46(4):919–926. doi: 10.1007/s00068–020–01409-x. PMID: 32494837
5. Tuan D. N., Kashani A., Imbalzano G., Nguyen K. T.Q., Hui D. Additive manufacturing (3d printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos. part B Eng. 2018;143:172–196. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012.
6. Lal B., Ghosh M., Agarwal B., Gupta D., Roychoudhury A. A novel economically viable solution for 3d printing-assisted cranioplast fabrication. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2020; 34:280–283. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2020.1726289.
7. Features of modeling a polymer implant for closing a defect after decompressive craniotomy. Okishev D. N., Cherebylo S. A., Konovalov An.N., Chelushkin D. M., Shekhtman O.D., Konovalov N.A., Okisheva E.A., Kravchuk A. D., Eliava Sh. Sh. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2022;86(1):17–27. eLIBRARY ID: 47983826 EDN: PGZFAA. doi: 10.17116/neiro20228601117. (in Russ)
8. da Silva Júnior E. B., de Aragão A. H., De Paula Loureiro M., Lobo C. S., Oliveti A. F., de Oliveira R. M., Ramina R. Cranioplasty with three-dimensional customised mould for polymethylmethacrylate implant: A series of 16 consecutive patients with cost-effectiveness consideration. 3D Print. Med. 2021;7:4. doi: 10.1186/s41205-021-00096-7.
9. Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D. Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg. 2010 May;112(5):1120–4. doi: 10.3171/2009.6.JNS09133.
10. Malcolm J. G., Rindler R. S., Chu J. K., Grossberg J.A., Pradilla G., Ahmad F.U. Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2016;33:39–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.04.017.
Review
For citations:
Babichev K.N., Vavryn A.V., Solovyev S.S., Svistov D.V. The first experience using additive technology for cranioplasty. Russian Neurosurgical Journal named after Professor A. L. Polenov. 2023;15(4):22-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.56618/2071-2693_2023_15_4_22. EDN: CCSSKG
Views:
58
Email this article 