Outcome of 3D Reconstructed Acrylic Cranioplasty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.1701Keywords:
Anatomy, Cosmesis, Cranioplasty, Cranial Defects, Patient Satisfaction.Abstract
Background: Cranioplasty is required for post-craniectomy rehabilitation. Its outcomes depend on multiple factors; this study aims to evaluate the impact of size and the anatomic location of cranial defect on patient satisfaction. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 70 patients who underwent cranioplasty. A defect size ranging from 12cm2 to 168cm2 was included in the study and was categorized into four anatomic groups (Frontotemporal, Trauma flap, Occipital, and Bifrontal). A 10-point Likert scale was used to assess patient satisfaction scores. A One-way ANOVA test, a Kruskal-Wallis’s test, and a Logistic Regression were performed to evaluate these defect characteristics and their effect on the cosmetic satisfaction. Results: Among the participants, 90% were satisfied with the cosmetic outcome following cranioplasty. The study found no significant association between the defect size and patient satisfaction (P-value 0.309 and Exb (B)= 1.014). Also, no significant impact of anatomical location was observed on patient satisfaction (Anova: F (3, 3) = 1.41, P-value 0.249). Conclusion: The study found no significant effect of the cranial defect sizes or their anatomical location on the overall patient cosmetic satisfaction.
Downloads
References
Irshad TM, Jabeen M, Siddique U, Mirza TI, Latif A, Raza A. Cranioplasty: Autologous Bone Graft vs Titanium Mesh. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2023; 17(2):27.
https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs202317227
Yeap MC, Tu PH, Liu ZH, Hsieh PC, Liu YT, Lee CY, et al. Long-term complications of cranioplasty using stored autologous bone graft, three-dimensional polymethyl methacrylate, or titanium mesh after decompressive craniectomy: a single-center experience after 596 procedures. World Neurosurg. 2019; 128:e841–e850.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.005
Koper D, ter Laak-Poort M, Lethaus B, Yamauchi K, Moroni L, Habibovic P, et al. Cranioplasty with patient-specific implants in repeatedly reconstructed cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47(5):709–714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.034.
Shash YH. Assessment of cranial reconstruction utilizing various implant materials: finite element study. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2024;35(1):50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-024-06816-9
Yoon HG, Ko Y, Kim YS, Bak KH, Chun HJ, Na MK, et al. Efficacy of 3D-Printed Titanium Mesh-Type Patient-Specific Implant for Cranioplasty. Korean J Neurotrauma. 2021 Sep 9;17(2):91–99.
https://doi.org/10.13004/kjnt.2021.17.e25.
Lee JH, Shim YW, Kim ST, Lee WH, Lee KS, Paeng SH, Pyo SY. Clinical outcomes of cranioplasty using a customized artificial bone flap made by a 3D printing technique. J Neurointensive Care. 2021;4(2):52–57.
https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2021.00388.
Bečulić H, Spahić D, Begagić E, Pugonja R, Skomorac R, Jusić A, Selimović E, Mašović A, Pojskić M. Breaking barriers in cranioplasty: 3D printing in low and middle-income settings—Insights from Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Sep 27;59(10):1732.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59101732
Dabadi S, Dhungel RR, Sharma U, Shrestha D, Gurung P, Shrestha R, Pant B. Customized cost-effective polymethyl-methacrylate cranioplasty implant using three-dimensional printer. Asian J Neurosurg. 2021;16(1):150–154.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ajns.AJNS_441_20
Ilbel F, Schein S, Slrama N, Gruzman I, Mariani L, Thegringer RM, Soleman J. Clinical and patient-reported outcome after patient-specific 3D printer-assisted cranioplasty. Neurosurg Rev. 2023 Apr 19;46(1):93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-02000-9
Mee H, Anwar F, Timofeev I, Owens N, Grieve K, Whiting G, Alexander K, Kendrick K, Helmy A, Hutchinson P, Kolias A. Cranioplasty: a multidisciplinary approach. Front Surg. 2022;9:864385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.864385
Iaccarino C, Kolias AG, Roumy LG, Fountas KN, Adeleye AO. Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy. Front Neurol. 2019; 10:1357.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01357
Uygur S, Eryilmaz T, Cukurluoglu O, Ozmen S, Yavuzer R. Management of cranial bone defects: a reconstructive algorithm according to defect size. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(5):1606–1609. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182a2101c
Fallatah MA, Aldahlawi A, Babateen EM, Saif S, Alnejadi W, Bamsallm M, Lary A, Saif SA. Outcomes of cranioplasty: a single-center experience. Cureus. 2023 Feb 20;15(2):e35902.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35902
Silva RDP, Pigozzi DA. Customized acrylic implants for reconstruction of extensive skull defects: an exceptional approach for selected patients. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2017;44(4):345–51.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912017004012
Kwiecien GJ, Sinclair N, Coombs DM, Djohan RS, Mihal D, Zins JE. Long-term effect of cranioplasty on overlying scalp atrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(8):e3031. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003031.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
