Toward global availability of low-cost, patient-specific cranial implants: creation and validation of automated CranialRebuild freeware application.
3D printing
Cost-effective
CranialRebuild
Cranioplasty
Patient-specific cranial implants
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
10
03
2023
accepted:
12
05
2023
medline:
9
8
2023
pubmed:
23
6
2023
entrez:
23
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Financial restrictions limit the options for hermetically precise, patient-specific cranial implants (PSCIs) after decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) in low-income countries. Use of image segmentation, modeling software, and 3D printers has lowered costs associated with PSCIs. However, requirements of time and technical expertise have prevented widespread utilization. Our objective was to create a fully automated software algorithm that is able to generate a virtual model (.STL) of a negative of an implant using CT imaging following DHC. A freeware algorithm (CranialRebuild) was constructed with the following capabilities: (1) after the upload of digital imaging and communications in medicine files, the normal side is analyzed in reference to the side of DHC, (2) Boolean subtraction is used to obtain a virtual image of the desired implant, and (3) a two-piece virtual model (.STL) of the PSCI mold is generated. In four cadaveric specimens, a standard DHC was performed. Post-DHC CT imaging was used to obtain a .STL of the negative of the implant, which was then printed using poly-lactic acid (PLA). Methylmethacrylate cement was used to generate a PSCI from the mold. The PSCIs were implanted into the index specimens; cosmesis was subjectively evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Two specimens were graded as 4/5, indicating that minor post-processing modification was needed for optimal cosmesis. Two specimens were graded as 3/5, indicating that optimal cosmesis could be obtained following moderate post-processing modification. CranialRebuild can be used to create hermetically precise PSCIs at a fraction of the price of third-party vendors. Validation of this technology has significant implications for the accessibility of customized cranial implants worldwide.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37351673
doi: 10.1007/s00701-023-05663-x
pii: 10.1007/s00701-023-05663-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2219-2224Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Ashraf M, Choudhary N, Kamboh UA, Raza MA, Sultan KA, Ghulam N, Hussain SS, Ashraf N (2022) Early experience with patient-specific low-cost 3D-printed polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty implants in a lower-middle-income-country: technical note and economic analysis. Surg Neurol Int 13:270
doi: 10.25259/SNI_250_2022
pubmed: 35855120
pmcid: 9282781
Bhaskar IP, Yusheng L, Zheng M, Lee GYF (2011) Autogenous skull flaps stored frozen for more than 6 months: do they remain viable? J Clin Neurosci 18(12):1690–1693
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.02.046
pubmed: 22000837
Binhammer A, Jakubowski J, Antonyshyn O, Binhammer P (2020) Comparative cost-effectiveness of cranioplasty implants. Plast Surg (Oakv) 28(1):29–39
doi: 10.1177/2292550319880922
pubmed: 32110643
ChemAnalyst (2022) Polylactic acid price trend and forecast https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-data/polylactic-acid-1275 Accessed June 2022
ChemAnalyst (2022) Polycarbonate price trend and forecast https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-data/polycarbonate-47 Accessed June 2022
Cheng CH, Lee HC, Chen CC, Cho DY, Lin HL (2014) Cryopreservation versus subcutaneous preservation of autologous bone flaps for cranioplasty: comparison of the surgical site infection and bone resorption rates. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 124:85–89
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.06.029
pubmed: 25019457
Eufinger H, Wehmoller M (1998) Individual prefabricated titanium implants in reconstructive craniofacial surgery: clinical and technical aspects of the first 22 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(2):300–308
doi: 10.1097/00006534-199808000-00002
pubmed: 9703063
Eufinger H, Wehmoller M, Machtens E, Heuser L, Harders A, Kruse D (1995) Reconstruction of craniofacial bone defects with individual alloplastic implants based on CAD/CAM-manipulated CT-data. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 23(3):175–181
doi: 10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80007-1
pubmed: 7673445
Hatamleh M (2021) Contemporary review on craniectomy and cranioplasty; part 1. J Craniofac Surg 33(3):838–841
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008041
pubmed: 34320589
Honeybul S, Ho KM (2012) How "successful" is calvarial reconstruction using frozen autologous bone? Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5):1110–1117
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318267d4de
pubmed: 23096611
Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, Corteen EA, Czosnyka M, Timothy J, Anderson I, Bulters DO, Belli A, Eynon A, Wadley J, Mendelow D et al (2016) Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med 375(12):1119–1130
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1605215
pubmed: 27602507
Morales-Gomez JA, Garcia-Estrada E, Leos-Bortoni JE, Delgado-Brito M, Flores-Huerta LE, De La Cruz-Arriaga AA, Torres-Diaz LJ, Martinez-Ponce de Leon AR (2019) Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer. J Neurosurg 130(5):1721–1727
doi: 10.3171/2017.12.JNS172574
Piazza M, Grady MS (2017) Cranioplasty. Neurosurg Clin N Am 28(2):257–265
doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2016.11.008
pubmed: 28325460
Schon SN, Skalicky N, Sharma N, Zumofen DW, Thieringer FM (2021) 3D-printer-assisted patient-specific polymethyl methacrylate cranioplasty: a case series of 16 consecutive patients. World Neurosurg 148:e356–e362
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.138
pubmed: 33418118
Solomon D, Xu A, Cheng JC, Forbes JA (2021) Cost effectiveness in cranioplasty: investigational 3D-printed method for patient-specific cranial implant. Congress Quarterly 22(1):12
Tan ETW, Ling JM, Dinesh SK (2016) The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer. J Neurosurg 124(5):1531–1537
doi: 10.3171/2015.5.JNS15119
pubmed: 26566203
Venugopal V, Ghalsasi O, McConaha M, Xu A, Forbes J, Anand S (2021) Image processing-based method for automatic design of patient-specific cranial implant for additive manufacturing. Proc Manuf 53:375–386