Top

Acta Neurochirurgica

Published in:

01-03-2022 | Original Article - Brain trauma

Customized cost-effective polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty: a cosmetic comparison with other low-cost methods of cranioplasty

Authors: Manish Baldia, Mathew Joseph, Suryaprakash Sharma, Deva Kumar, Ashwin Retnam, Santosh Koshy, Reka Karuppusami

Published in: Acta Neurochirurgica | Issue 3/2022

Abstract

Background

Intraoperative hand-moulded cranioplasty and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) prostheses made from bone impressions are economical but the cosmetic results are less than satisfactory. Commercially available customized prostheses perform better but are prohibitively expensive. We evaluate the performance of a locally developed, low-cost customized PMMA cranioplasty prosthesis.

Objective

To compare the cosmetic outcome of 3 types of PMMA cranioplasty as well as with objective measurements on postoperative CT scans

Methods

This study includes 70 patients who underwent cranioplasty between March 2016 and June 2020. In this period, patients had their cranioplasty prostheses made by intra-operative hand moulding (HM), by using the removed bone as a template and making a bone impression (BI) or by 3D printing the prosthesis based on a CT scan. Cosmetic outcomes were assessed by the patient and the operating surgeon on an 8-point scale. The degree of measured anthropometric asymmetry was measured on a postoperative CT scan and correlated with the cosmetic outcome.

Results

Our locally produced 3D-printed cranioplasty prostheses showed a statistically better performance in cosmetic scores when compared to the HM and BI (p value < 0.001). CT anthropometric measurements significantly correlated with cosmetic outcome (p value 0.01)

Conclusion

Our 3D cranioplasty prostheses had better cosmetic outcomes than HM and BI prostheses, and our technique is able to produce them at 10% of the cost of the currently available commercial customized prostheses.

Archana R, Baldia M, Jeeva JB, Joseph M (2019) Strength analysis of cranioplasty PMMA flap material. Mater Today Proc 15:167–172CrossRef

Arora M, Chan EK, Gupta S, Diwan AD (2013) Polymethylmethacrylate bone cements and additives: a review of the literature. World J Orthop 4(2):67–74CrossRef

Baldia M, Sharma SA, Prabhu K, Koshy S (2017) Cost effective, technically simpler, and aesthetically promising cranioplasty in developing countries. Neurol India 65(3):660CrossRef

Binhammer A, Jakubowski J, Antonyshyn O, Binhammer P (2020) Comparative cost-effectiveness of cranioplasty implants. Plast Surg 28(1):29–39

Caro-Osorio E, De la Garza-Ramos R, Martínez-Sánchez SR, Olazarán-Salinas F (2013) Cranioplasty with polymethylmethacrylate prostheses fabricated by hand using original bone flaps: Technical note and surgical outcomes. Surg Neurol Int 4

Chamo D, Msallem B, Sharma N, Aghlmandi S, Kunz C, Thieringer FM (2020) Accuracy assessment of molded, patient-specific polymethylmethacrylate craniofacial implants compared to their 3D printed originals. J Clin Med 9(3):832CrossRef

Cho YJ, Kang SH (2017) Review of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. Korean J Neurotrauma 13(1):9–14CrossRef

Desai JB (2019) Cost-effective technique of fabrication of polymethyl methacrylate based cranial implant using three-dimensional printed moulds and wax elimination technique. J Craniofac Surg 30(4):1259–1263CrossRef

Đurić KS, Barić H, Domazet I, Barl P, Njirić N, Mrak G (2019) Polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty using low-cost customised 3D printed moulds for cranial defects–a single centre experience. Br J Neurosurg 33(4):376–378CrossRef

10.

Feroze AH, Walmsley GG, Choudhri O, Lorenz HP, Grant GA, Edwards MS (2015) Evolution of cranioplasty techniques in neurosurgery: historical review, pediatric considerations, and current trends. J Neurosurg 123(4):1098–1107CrossRef

11.

Fischer CM, Burkhardt J-K, Sarnthein J, Bernays RL, Bozinov O (2012) Aesthetic outcome in patients after polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) cranioplasty—a questionnaire-based single-centre study. Neurol Res 34(3):281–285CrossRef

12.

Giese H, Meyer J, Engel M, Unterberg A, Beynon C (2020) Polymethylmethacrylate patient-matched implants (PMMA-PMI) for complex and revision cranioplasty: analysis of long-term complication rates and patient outcomes. Brain Inj 34(2):269–275CrossRef

13.

Goh RC, Chang C-N, Lin C-L, Lo L-J (2010) Customised fabricated implants after previous failed cranioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(9):1479–1484CrossRef

14.

Golz T, Graham CR, Busch LC, Wulf J, Winder RJ (2010) Temperature elevation during simulated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cranioplasty in a cadaver model. J Clin Neurosci 17(5):617–622CrossRef

15.

Hay JA, Smayra T, Moussa R (2017) Customized polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty implants using 3-dimensional printed polylactic acid molds: technical note with 2 illustrative cases. World Neurosurg 105:971–979 (e1)CrossRef

16.

Henker C, Hoppmann M-C, Sherman MUS, Glass A, Piek J (2018) Validation of a novel clinical score: the Rostock functional and cosmetic cranioplasty score. J Neurotrauma 35(8):1030–1036CrossRef

17.

Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, Lind CR, Geelhoed E (2017) A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty. J Neurosurg 126(1):81–90CrossRef

18.

Hueh LP, Abdullah JY, Abdullah AM, Yahya S, Idris Z, Mohamad D (2016) Patient-specific reconstruction utilizing computer assisted 3D modelling for partial bone flap defect in hybrid cranioplasty. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1791, No. 1, p. 020020). AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4968875

19.

Iaccarino C, Kolias A, Adelson PD, Rubiano AM, Viaroli E, Buki A, ... Servadei F (2021) Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on post-traumatic cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir 163(2):423–440

20.

Kim B-J, Hong K-S, Park K-J, Park D-H, Chung Y-G, Kang S-H (2012) Customized cranioplasty implants using three-dimensional printers and polymethyl-methacrylate casting. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52(6):541CrossRef

21.

Kim J, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kwon T-H, Roh H (2019) Outcomes of cranioplasty using autologous bone or 3D-customized titanium mesh following decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: differences in complications. J Trauma Inj 32(4):202–209CrossRef

22.

Koper D, ter Laak-Poort M, Lethaus B, Yamauchi K, Moroni L, Habibovic P, Kessler P (2019) Cranioplasty with patient-specific implants in repeatedly reconstructed cases. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 47(5):709–714CrossRef

23.

Kriegel RJ, Schaller C, Clusmann H (2007) Cranioplasty for large skull defects with PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) or tutoplast® processed autogenic bone grafts. Zentralblatt Für Neurochir-Cent Eur Neurosurg 68(04):182–189CrossRef

24.

Marchac D, Greensmith A (2008) Long-term experience with methylmethacrylate cranioplasty in craniofacial surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(7):744–752CrossRef

25.

Maricevich JPBR, Cezar-Junior AB, de Oliveira-Junior EX, e Silva JAMV, da Silva JVL, Nunes, A ... Azevedo-Filho HRC (2019) Functional and aesthetic evaluation after cranial reconstruction with polymethyl methacrylate prostheses using low-cost 3D printing templates in patients with cranial defects secondary to decompressive craniectomies: A prospective study. Surgical neurology Int 10. https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_149_18

26.

Morales-Gómez JA, Garcia-Estrada E, Leos-Bortoni JE, Delgado-Brito M, Flores-Huerta LE, Adriana A, Torres-Díaz LJ, de León ÁRM-P (2018) Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer. J Neurosurg 130(5):1721–1727CrossRef

27.

Moser M, Schmid R, Schindel R, Hildebrandt G (2017) Patient-specific polymethylmethacrylate prostheses for secondary reconstruction of large calvarial defects: a retrospective feasibility study of a new intraoperative moulding device for cranioplasty. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 45(2):295–303CrossRef

28.

Piitulainen JM, Kauko T, Aitasalo KM, Vuorinen V, Vallittu PK, Posti JP (2015) Outcomes of cranioplasty with synthetic materials and autologous bone grafts. World Neurosurg 83(5):708–714CrossRef

29.

Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, Bui TT, Lazareff J, Rezzadeh K, Jarrahy R, Yang I (2017) Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 41:30–35CrossRef

30.

Rotaru H, Stan H, Florian IS, Schumacher R, Park Y-T, Kim S-G, Chezan H, Balc N, Baciut M (2012) Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: analyzing the cases of 10 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(2):e169–e176CrossRef

31.

Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S (2014) Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 36(4):E19CrossRef

32.

Sun Y, Hu Y, Yuan Q, Yu J, Wu X, Du Z, Wu X, Hu J (2018) Association between metal hypersensitivity and implant failure in patients who underwent titanium cranioplasty. J Neurosurg 131(1):40–46CrossRef

33.

Swanson E (2013) Levels of evidence in cosmetic surgery: analysis and recommendations using a new CLEAR classification. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000001

34.

Tan ET, Ling JM, Dinesh SK (2016) The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer. J Neurosurg 124(5):1531–1537CrossRef

35.

Tawab MGA, Latif MA, Osman AAL (2019) Cranioplasty of calvarial skull defects: a comparative study between using three dimensional custom-made cranioprostheses versus hand-made bone cement in restoring skull configuration. Open J Mod Neurosurg 9(3):314–326CrossRef

36.

Thien A, King NK, Ang BT, Wang E, Ng I (2015) Comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg 83(2):176–180CrossRef

37.

Wallace RD, Salt C, Konofaos P (2015) Comparison of autogenous and alloplastic cranioplasty materials following impact testing. J Craniofac Surg 26(5):1551–1557CrossRef

38.

Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, Robiony M, Alfieri A, Parodi PC (2016) Cranioplasty: review of materials. J Craniofac Surg 27(8):2061–2072CrossRef

Title: Customized cost-effective polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty: a cosmetic comparison with other low-cost methods of cranioplasty
Authors: Manish Baldia
Mathew Joseph
Suryaprakash Sharma
Deva Kumar
Ashwin Retnam
Santosh Koshy
Reka Karuppusami
Publication date: 01-03-2022
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: Acta Neurochirurgica / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0001-6268
Electronic ISSN: 0942-0940
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05121-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Customized cost-effective polymethylmethacrylate cranioplasty: a cosmetic comparison with other low-cost methods of cranioplasty

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty for reconstruction of translabyrinthine approach: aesthetic results, long-term satisfaction, quality of life, and complications

Outflow angle: a risk factor for thromboembolic complications in coil embolisation for treating unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms

Optimizing post anesthesia care unit admission after elective craniotomy for brain tumors: a cohort study

Stereotactic biopsies of brainstem lesions: dilemma on the best trajectory

Risk factors for adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with screw fixation: focus on paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc degeneration

Safety analysis and complications of condylar screws in a single-surgeon series of 250 occipitocervical fusions