Cranioplasty for bone defects after craniosynostosis surgery. Case series with literature review

Design of customized implants and 3D printing of symmetric and asymmetric cranial cavities

A methodology has been developed in this work to design customized cranial implants from computed tomography (CT) scan images for symmetric as well as asymmetric defects. The two-dimensional CT scan images were converted into three-dimensional geometric models using software packages. Two cases of cranial cavities at different locations were considered for implant design using two different approaches. Case 1 is having a symmetric cranial cavity while Case 2 has an asymmetric frontal cranial cavity. The craniums with defects were 3D reconstructed. Customized cranial implants were made for the two cases. In Case 1, symmetry was used to design the cranial implant. Symmetry cannot be used in Case 2. In Case 2, the implant was designed by blending from the surface available adjacent to the missing portion of the cranium. 3D reconstructed bone models and customized implants were 3D printed in poly-lactic acid (PLA) using a fused deposition modeling process for form and fit evaluation. Finite element analysis was performed to compare the mechanical behavior of bone, and the two biomaterials - polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and Ti6Al4V. Static structural finite element analysis was performed to simulate the impact of falling off a bicycle with an impact on the cranial implants in the two cases. The load was modeled as a normal force acting on the surface of the implant. It was found that the stresses in the titanium alloy are comparable to those of PEEK for both the cases. However, the strains and deformation were found to be much smaller compared to those in PEEK. Therefore, the titanium alloy is the material of choice for both the cases among the materials under consideration. The designed implants are solid hence may face the challenge in bone ingrowth. In future studies, the implant can be made porous by incorporating a lattice structure to enhance osseointegration and promote bone ingrowth. Implants for both symmetric and asymmetric defect cases in cranium were successfully designed.

A Systematic Review of Idiopathic Secondary Stenosis Following Index Surgery for Craniosynostosis

BACKGROUND

Primary craniosynostosis is a congenital craniofacial disorder in which cranial sutures prematurely close. Iatrogenic secondary stenosis is abnormal cranial suture closure caused by surgical manipulation of the suture. In contrast, idiopathic secondary stenosis develops in a suture that did not undergo surgical manipulation. The objective of this systematic review was to consolidate and characterize the incidence, classification, and management of idiopathic secondary stenosis in the literature.

METHODS

Literature from PubMed, Web Of Science, and EMBASE from 1970 to March 2022 was reviewed. The following information was extracted for individual patients: incidence of idiopathic secondary stenosis, index primary craniosynostosis, primary surgical correction, presenting signs of secondary stenosis, management, and further complications.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles detailing 1181 patients were included. Ninety-one developed idiopathic secondary stenosis (7.7%). Only 3 of these patients were syndromic. The most common index craniosynostosis was sagittal synostosis (83.5%). The most common suture undergoing idiopathic secondary stenosis was the coronal suture (91.2%). Patients presented at a median age of 24 months. The most common presenting sign was a radiologic finding (85.7%), although some patients presented with headache or head deformity. Only 2 patients, both syndromic, had complications following surgical correction of secondary stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Idiopathic secondary stenosis is a rare, long-term complication following index surgical repair of craniosynostosis. It can occur following any surgical technique. It most commonly affects the coronal suture but can affect any of the sutures, including pansynostosis. Surgical correction is curative in nonsyndromic patients.

The Use of the Three-Dimensional Printed Polyether Ether Ketone Implant in Secondary Craniosynostosis Revision

BACKGROUND

Skull deformities may be seen in patients years after craniosynostosis correction. These deformities cause psychosocial distress in affected patients. In this series, the authors describe the use of patient specific polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implants for correction of skull deformities after cranial vault remodeling for craniosynostosis.

METHODS

A chart review was conducted for 3 revision procedures performed by 1 plastic surgeon in collaboration with 1 neurosurgeon, both affiliated with Northwell Health. Preoperative computed tomography scans were used to design three-dimensional (3D) printed PEEK implants manufactured by KLS Martin. Implants were used to correct frontal and orbital asymmetry and skull deformities in each patient. Outcomes were assessed at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months post-operation.

RESULTS

Two males and 1 female, ages 13, 17, and 19, underwent revision cranioplasty or orbital rim reconstruction using a custom, single piece 3D printed PEEK implant. All 3 patients underwent cranial vault remodeling in infancy; 1 was treated for coronal craniosynostosis and 2 were treated for metopic craniosynostosis. Revision cranioplasty operative times were 90, 105, and 147 minutes, with estimated blood loss of 45 mL, 75 mL, and 150 mL, respectively. One patient went home on post op day 1 and 2 patients went home on post op day 2. All patients had an immediate improvement in structural integrity and cranial contour, and all patients were pleased with their aesthetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Custom 3D printed PEEK implants offer a single piece solution in revision cranioplasty surgery to correct skull deformities after cranial vault remodeling for craniosynostosis.

Is reverse frontal cranioplasty eligible for the correction of both the forehead deformities and the intracranial hypertension in craniosynostosis? Comparison of the preoperative and postoperative intracranial volumes

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the surgical technique of reverse frontal cranioplasty (RFC), the aesthetical modification as well as the modification of intracranial volume (ICV) to assess its potential eligibility for the treatment of the intracranial hypertension (IH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric study included the patients with a history of craniosynostosis with a forehead deformity who underwent RFC. A subjective outcome questionnaire (SOQ) was conducted with each patient or their parent to determine their level of satisfaction after RFC. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were analyzed and compared to investigate the ICV change and fronto-nasal angle.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included in the study (6 female and 5 male) with a mean age of 10.9 years old (range 3-23 years) and an average follow-up of 4.5 years (1-11 years). All patients responded to the questionnaire with a high level of overall satisfaction (mean 9.1/10). The mean preoperative FNA was 134° ± 5° while the mean postoperative angle was 126.4° ± 6, corresponding to an average decrease of 7.6° (95% CI, 4.0-11.2°; p < 0.001). One patient with preoperative IH had a clinical recurrence during the follow-up. The ICV was significantly higher after the surgery (p < 0.0001), with an average increase of 3.2% (95% CI, 2.3-4.1%).

CONCLUSION

Reverse (RFC) is a useful technique for the correction of the frontal malformations related to craniosynostosis, such as a sloping forehead and/or a lack of the supraorbital projection. Regarding the limited gain of intracranial volume (ICV), it should not be used alone as primary cranial expansion surgery for craniosynostosis with intracranial hypertension (IH).

A Comparison of Subgaleal Versus Subperiosteal Dissection in Open Cranial Vault Expansion for Sagittal Craniosynostosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes for patients with sagittal craniosynostosis undergoing open cranial vault remodeling with a modified pi procedure comparing subgaleal versus subperiosteal dissection.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for children between the ages of 3 and 7 months with sagittal craniosynostosis undergoing open cranial vault expansion at Seattle Children's Hospital. Patient demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes including the surface area of bony cranial defects at 2-year follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, 35 patients between the ages of 3 and 7 months underwent surgical correction of sagittal craniosynostosis using our institutional adaptation of the modified pi technique. Twenty-five patients underwent exposure via a subgaleal (SG) approach, 10 patients had a subpericranial (SP) exposure. Compared with the SP group, the SG group had significant lower estimated blood loss and a shorter operating time (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences with regard to hospital length of stay or postoperative complications (P ≥ 0.48). At 2 years postoperatively, there were no significant differences in the size of the largest cranial defects (SG: 1.1 ± 0.1 cm² versus 3.7 ± 0.1 cm², P = 0.40); no patients required a secondary cranioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Open posterior and middle cranial vault expansion is a safe and efficient method of open cranial vault expansion in sagittal craniosynostosis regardless of the plane of dissection. Elevation of the scalp flaps in the SG plane is a minor technical modification that can reduce blood loss and operative times.