TY - JOUR
T1 - The use of cranial resection templates with 3D virtual planning and PEEK patient-specific implants
T2 - A 3 year follow-up
AU - van de Vijfeijken, S.E.C.M.
AU - Schreurs, R.
AU - Dubois, L.
AU - Becking, A.G.
AU - CranioSafe Group
AU - Karssemakers, L.H.E.
AU - Milstein, D.M.J.
AU - Depauw, P.R.A.M.
AU - Hoefnagels, F.W.A.
AU - Vandertop, W.P.
AU - Kleverlaan, C.J.
AU - Münker, T.J.A.G.
AU - Maal, T.J.J.
AU - Nout, E.
AU - Riool, M.
AU - Zaat, S.A.J.
PY - 2019/4/1
Y1 - 2019/4/1
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of resection templates in cranioplasties in order to facilitate a one-stage resection and cranial reconstruction. Patients and methods: In three cases, cranial resections were combined with direct reconstructions using the principles of computer-aided design, manufacturing, and surgery. The precision of the resection template was evaluated through a distance map, comparing the planned and final result. Results: The mean absolute difference between the planned and actual reconstructed contour was less than 1.0 mm. After 3 years, no clinical signs of infection or rejection of the implants were present. The computed tomography scans showed no irregularities, and the aesthetic results remained satisfactory. Conclusion: One-stage resection and cranial reconstruction using a resection template, control template, and a prefabricated patient-specific implant of poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) proved to be a viable and safe method.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of resection templates in cranioplasties in order to facilitate a one-stage resection and cranial reconstruction. Patients and methods: In three cases, cranial resections were combined with direct reconstructions using the principles of computer-aided design, manufacturing, and surgery. The precision of the resection template was evaluated through a distance map, comparing the planned and final result. Results: The mean absolute difference between the planned and actual reconstructed contour was less than 1.0 mm. After 3 years, no clinical signs of infection or rejection of the implants were present. The computed tomography scans showed no irregularities, and the aesthetic results remained satisfactory. Conclusion: One-stage resection and cranial reconstruction using a resection template, control template, and a prefabricated patient-specific implant of poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) proved to be a viable and safe method.
KW - CAD/CAM-CAS
KW - Computer-aided design, manufacturing, and surgery
KW - Craniectomy
KW - PEEK
KW - PSI
KW - Patient-specific implant
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061316776&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85061316776&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30745010
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.012
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 30745010
SN - 1010-5182
VL - 47
SP - 542
EP - 547
JO - Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
JF - Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
IS - 4
ER -