4.3 Article

Single-stage bone resection and cranioplastic reconstruction: comparison of a novel software-derived PEEK workflow with the standard reconstructive method

期刊

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.11.011

关键词

virtual craniotomy; single-stage craniofacial reconstruction; patient-specific implant; PEEK; navigation-guided surgery

资金

  1. Synthes GmbH (Oberdorf, Switzerland)
  2. PEEK implants, Matrix osteosynthesis material

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combined resection of skull-infiltrating tumours and immediate cranioplastic reconstruction predominantly relies on freehand-moulded solutions. Techniques that enable this procedure to be performed easily in routine clinical practice would be useful. A cadaveric study was developed in which a new software tool was used to perform single-stage reconstructions with prefabricated implants after the resection of skull-infiltrating pathologies. A novel 3D visualization and interaction framework was developed to create 10 virtual craniotomies in five cadaveric specimens. Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants were manufactured according to the bone defects. The image-guided craniotomy was reconstructed with PEEK and compared to polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Navigational accuracy and surgical precision were assessed. The PEEK workflow resulted in up to 10-fold shorter reconstruction times than the standard technique. Surgical precision was reflected by the mean 1.1 +/- 0.29 mm distance between the virtual and real craniotomy, with submillimetre precision in 50%. Assessment of the global offset between virtual and actual craniotomy revealed an average shift of 4.5 +/- 3.6 mm. The results validated the 'elective single-stage cranioplasty' technique as a state-of-the-art virtual planning method and surgical workflow. This patient-tailored workflow could significantly reduce surgical times compared to the traditional, intraoperative acrylic moulding method and may be an option for the reconstruction of bone defects in the craniofacial region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据