Application of patient-specific implants in the extensive space-occupying masses surgery of craniofacial zone
Abstract
Background. Removal of extensive volumetric neoplasms of the
craniofacial zone is accompanied by the formation of large cranial bone
defects, which require one-stage reconstruction to achieve optimal aesthetic
and functional outcomes and preserve the patient’s quality of life. The stage
of reconstruction should be as quick and minimally traumatic as possible. The
possibility to refuse donor tissues allows to reduce the volume of surgical
intervention, and the use of modern materials, computer modeling and
three-dimensional printing technologies allow to create implants that match the
anatomical features of a particular patient best of all.
Аim –
to analyze the use of patient-specific implants for one-stage reconstruction of
complex skull defects after removal of craniofacial zone space-occupying
masses.
Material and methods.
Eight patients with
space-occupying masses in the craniofacial zone, after removal of which
one-stage reconstruction of extensive bone defects was performed with
patient-specific implants made of titanium or polyetheretherketone based on
stereolithographic models or using three-dimensional printing, were included in
the study from 2013 to 2021.
Results. In all observations the use of the patient-specific
implants allowed to achieve the optimal cosmetic and functional results and to
reduce the operation time as a result of the elimination of the implant
intraoperative modeling stage.
Conclusion. Modern technologies of computer modeling and
three-dimensional printing allow to produce patient-specific implants from a
wide range of allomaterials. However, implants made of allomaterials still do
not allow prosthetics to perform complex functions, as well as they are not
capable of augmentation in growing children, do not exclude risks of infection
and autoimmune reactions. The creation of alternative strategies for
manufacturing patient-specific implants using the inventions of regenerative
medicine, which combines the principles of cell and molecular biology,
bioengineering, and tissue engineering, is advantageous.
Keywords:craniofacial reconstruction; patient-specific implants; surgery of craniofacial tumors
Funding. The study had no sponsor support.
Conflict of interest.
The authors declare
no conflict of interest.
For citation: Vasiliev S.A., Levin R.S., Aslanukov M.N., Oshchepkov
S.K. Application of patient-specific implants in the extensive space-occupying
masses surgery of craniofacial zone. Clinical and Experimental Surgery.
Petrovsky Journal. 2022; 10 (3): 83–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2308-1198-2022-10-3-83-88
(in Russian)
References
1. Dean D., Min K., Bond A. Computer aided design of large-format prefabricated cranial plates. J Craniofac Surg. 2003; 14 (6): 819–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200311000-00002
2. Scolozzi P. Maxillofacial reconstruction using polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants by «mirroring» computational planning. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012; 36 (3): 660–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9853-2
3. Lai J., Sittitavornwong S., Waite P. Computer-assisted designed and computer-assisted manufactured polyetheretherketone prosthesis for complex fronto-orbito-temporal defect. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69 (4): 1175–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.034
4. Sakamoto Y., Koike N., Takei H., Ohno M., Shigematsu N., Kishi K. Influence of backscatter radiation on cranial bone fixation devices. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29 (4): 1094–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000004392
5. Jalbert F., Boetto S., Nadon F., Lauwers F., Schmidt E., Lopez R. One-step primary reconstruction for complex craniofacial resection with PEEK custom-made implants. J Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2014; 42 (2): 141–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.04.001
6. Rudman K., Hoekzema C., Rhee J. Computer-assisted innovations in craniofacial surgery. Facial Plast. Surg. 2011; 27 (4): 358–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1283054
7. Hanasono M., Goel N., DeMonte F. Calvarial reconstruction with polyetheretherketone implants. Ann Plast Surg. 2009; 62 (6): 653–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0b013e318184abc7
8. Liao C., Li Y., Tjong S. Polyetheretherketone and its composites for bone replacement and regeneration. Polymers (Basel). 2020; 12 (12): 2858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12122858
9. Roskies M., Jordan J., Fang D., et al. Improving PEEK bioactivity for craniofacial reconstruction using a 3D printed scaffold embedded with mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomater Appl. 2016; 31 (1): 132–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328216638636
10. Borrelli M., Hu M., Longaker M., Lorenz H. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine in craniofacial reconstruction and facial aesthetics. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31 (1): 15–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005840