Polylactic Acid Implant for Cranioplasty with 3-dimensional Printing Customization: A Case Report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.5156Keywords:
Cranioplasty, Polylactic acid, Skull defect, 3-dimensional printAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cranioplasty is aimed to restore the structure and function of the lost portion of the skull defect. Many materials can be used for cranioplasty, such as the bones of the patient (autograft), the bones of other patients (allograft), bones of animals (xenograft), or synthetic materials such as acrylic or titanium mesh. These materials are quite expensive and sometimes require complex processes. Manual shaping of material for cranioplasty is also quite time-consuming and prone to cause esthetic dissatisfaction. The author will discuss the case of using polylactic acid (PLA) implant with 3-dimensional (3D) printing customization as a cheap and accurate cosmetic solution for cranioplasty procedures.
CASE REPORT: We report 2 cases of skull defect underwent cranioplasty. The first case, female, 20-year-old, had a history of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and epidural hematoma. She underwent decompression craniotomy on the left frontotemporoparietal region of her skull. The second case, male, 46-year-old, had a history of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage due to arteriovenous malformation (AVM). He underwent decompression craniotomy on the right frontotemporoparietal region of her skull. Both the data of computerized tomography (CT) scan were reconstructed to get 3D model of skull defect. Prosthesis was made by 3D printer accordingly using PLA as material. There was no complication reported postoperatively and cosmetic satisfaction was obtained on both cases.
CONCLUSION: The use of PLA implant with 3D printing customization was proved to be cost-effective and good cosmetic satisfaction with no complication reported following cranioplasty procedure.
Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Mostafa Elkatatny AA, Eldabaa KA. Cranioplasty: A new perspective. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(13):2093- 101. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.489 PMid:31456832
Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: A history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(4):E19. https:// doi.org/10.3171/2014.2.focus13561 PMid:24684331
Sürme MB. Cranioplasty with preoperatively customized polymethyl-methacrylate by using 3-dimensional printed polyethylene terephthalate glycol mold. J Neurosci Neurol Disord. 2018;2:52-64. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal. jnnd.1001016
Aydin S, Kucukyuruk B, Abuzayed B, Aydin S, Sanus GZ. Cranioplasty: Review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2011;2(2):162-7. https://doi. org/10.4103/0976-3147.83584 PMid:21897681
Yu Q, Chen L, Qiu Z, Zhang Y, Song T, Cui F. Skull repair materials applied in cranioplasty: History and progress. Transl Neurosci Clin. 2017;3(1):48-57. https://doi.org/10.18679/ cn11-6030/r.2017.007
Blasi P. Poly(lactic acid)/poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based microparticles: An overview. J Pharm Invest. 2019;49:337-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40005-019-00453-z
Sharma S, Goel SA. 3D printing and its future in medical world. J Med Res Innov. 2018;3(1):e000141. https://doi.org/10.15419/ jmri.141
Chae MP, Rozen WM, McMenamin PG, Findlay MW, Spychal RT, Hunter-Smith DJ. Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery. Front Surg. 2015;2:25. https://doi. org/10.3389/fsurg.2015.00025 PMid:26137465
Hatamleh MM, Cartmill M, Watson J. Management of extensive frontal cranioplasty defects. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(6):2018-22. PMid: 24220395
Peel S, Eggbeer D, Burton H, Hanson H, Evans PL. Additively manufactured versus conventionally pressed cranioplasty implants: An accuracy comparison. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 232(9):949-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411918794718
Peel, S. & Eggbeer, D. Additively manufactured maxillofacial implants and guides-Achieving routine use. Rapid Prototyp J. 2016;22(1):189-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-01-2014-0004
Pawar RP, Tekale SU, Shisodia SU, Totre JT, Domb AJ. Biomedical applications of poly(lactic acid). Recent Pat Regen Med. 2014;4(1):40-51. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210296504666 140402235024
Marek AA, Verney V. Photochemical reactivity of PLA at the vicinity of glass transition temperature. The photo-rheology method. Eur Polym J. 2016;81:239-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eurpolymj.2016.06.016
Oth O, Dauchot C, Orellana M, Glineur R. How to sterilize 3D printed objects for surgical use? An evaluation of the volumetric deformation of 3D-printed genioplasty guide in PLA and PETG after sterilization by low-temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma. Open Dent J. 2019;13(1):410-7. https://doi. org/10.2174/1874210601913010410
Turvey TA, Bell RB, Tejera TJ, Proffit WR. The use of self-reinforced biodegradable bone plates and screws in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(1):59-65. https://doi. org/10.1053/joms.2002.28274 PMid:11757010
Böstman O, Pihlajamäki H. Clinical biocompatibility of biodegradable orthopaedic implants for internal fixation: A review. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2615-21. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00129-0 PMid:11071611
Choi HJ, Kim W, Youn S, Lee JH. Management of delayed infection after insertion of bioresorbable plates at the infraorbital rim. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(2):524-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ scs.0b013e31824cd4de PMid:22421862
Kim YY, Rhyu KW. Recompression of vertebral body after balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(11):1907-12. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00586-010-1479-6 PMid:20559850
Kim YM, Lee JH. Clinical courses and degradation patterns of absorbable plates in facial bone fracture patients. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2019;20(5):297-303. https://doi.org/10.7181/ acfs.2019.00409 PMid:31658793
Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R. Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications-a comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;107:367-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.012
Staffa G, Nataloni A, Compagnone C, Servadei F. Custom made cranioplasty prostheses in porous hydroxy-apatite using 3D design techniques: 7 years experience in 25 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 20007;149(2):161-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00701-006-1078-9 PMid:17242849
Lemée JM, Petit D, Splingard M, Menei P. Autologous bone flap versus hydroxyapatite prosthesis in first intention in secondary cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: A French medico-economical study. Neurochirurgie. 2013;59(2):60-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2012.10.138
O’Reilly EB, Barnett S, Madden C, Welch B, Mickey B, Rozen S. Computed-tomography modeled polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants in revision cranioplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(3):329-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.001 PMid:25541423
Binhammer A, Jakubowski J, Antonyshyn O, Binhammer P. Comparative cost-effectiveness of cranioplasty implants. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2020;28(1):29-39. https://doi. org/10.1177/2292550319880922 PMid:32110643
Tan ET, Ling JM, Dinesh SK. The feasibility of producing patient-specific acrylic cranioplasty implants with a low-cost 3D printer. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(5):1531-7. https://doi. org/10.3171/2015.5.jns15119 PMid:26566203
Morales-Gómez JA, Garcia-Estrada E, Leos-Bortoni JE, Delgado-Brito M, Flores-Huerta LE, De La Cruz-Arriaga AA, et al. Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer. J Neurosurg. 2018;130:1-7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.12.jns172574 PMid:29905512
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Tedy Apriawan, Khrisna Rangga Permana, Ditto Darlan, Muhammad Reza Arifianto, Fitra Fitra, Asra Alfauzi, Abdul Hafid Bajamal (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
