Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Reconstruction with Polyetheretherketone Patient-Specific Implants: Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes

Overview

Journal J Pers Med

Date 2024 Aug 29

PMID 39202040

Authors

Ylenia Gugliotta

Emanuele Zavattero

Guglielmo Ramieri

Claudia Borbon

Giovanni Gerbino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Reconstructing cranio-maxillo-facial defects presents significant challenges. This study evaluates the results of polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants (PEEK PSIs) in primary and secondary cranio-maxillo-facial reconstructions, with a focus on aesthetic and functional outcomes and long-term complications.

Methods: From October 2009 to February 2023, 45 patients underwent cranio-maxillo-facial reconstructions with PSIs. Patients aged 18 years or older, with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, were included. The morpho-functional outcome was evaluated through a modified Katsuragy Scale, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and four FACE-Q|Aesthetics© scales.

Results: In total, 44 PSIs were placed in 37 patients (51.3% males; mean age 45.1 years). The main cause of the defect was the resection of a tumor (55.4%). Mean follow-up was 78.6 months. Clinical evaluations showed an improvement in the postoperative period both in patient's and surgeon's scores (: 0.01 and : 0.002, respectively). Subgroup analysis confirmed a significant improvement in patients undergoing cranioplasty ( = 0.02) and mandible reconstruction ( = 0.03). No cases of prosthesis dislocation, rupture, or long-term infection were recorded.

Conclusions: PEEK PSIs offer significant advantages in craniofacial reconstructions. Despite challenges in predicting soft tissue adaptation, overall patient satisfaction was high with no long-term complications. Future improvements should focus on predicting and enhancing soft tissue adaptations.

References

Kelly C, Cohen A, Yavuzer R, Jackson I . Cranial bone grafting for orbital reconstruction: is it still the best?. J Craniofac Surg. 2005; 16(1):181-5. DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200501000-00039. View

Mishra S, Chowdhary R . PEEK materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 21(1):208-222. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12706. View

Scolozzi P, Martinez A, Jaques B . Complex orbito-fronto-temporal reconstruction using computer-designed PEEK implant. J Craniofac Surg. 2007; 18(1):224-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.scs.0000249359.56417.7e. View

Kauke-Navarro M, Knoedler L, Knoedler S, Deniz C, Stucki L, Safi A . Balancing beauty and science: a review of facial implant materials in craniofacial surgery. Front Surg. 2024; 11:1348140. PMC: 10847330. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1348140. View

Hsieh T, Dhir K, Binder W, Hilger P . Alloplastic Facial Implants. Facial Plast Surg. 2021; 37(6):741-750. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725088. View

Gerbino G, Bianchi F, Zavattero E, Tartara F, Garbossa D, Ducati A . Single-step resection and reconstruction using patient-specific implants in the treatment of benign cranio-orbital tumors. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 71(11):1969-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.03.021. View

Farooq M, Anwar S, Bhatti H, Kumar M, Ali M, Ammarullah M . Electric Discharge Machining of Ti6Al4V ELI in Biomedical Industry: Parametric Analysis of Surface Functionalization and Tribological Characterization. Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(12). PMC: 10301990. DOI: 10.3390/ma16124458. View

Kim M, Boahene K, Byrne P . Use of customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in the reconstruction of complex maxillofacial defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009; 11(1):53-7. DOI: 10.1001/archfaci.11.1.53. View

AlAsseri N, Alasraj A . Patient-specific implants for maxillofacial defects: challenges and solutions. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 42(1):15. PMC: 7239988. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-020-00262-7. View

10.

Ahmad A, Yaakob H, Khalil A, Georges P . Evaluating patients' satisfaction level after using 3D printed PEEK facial implants in repairing maxillofacial deformities. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022; 79:104095. PMC: 9289507. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104095. View

11.

Kurtz S, Devine J . PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007; 28(32):4845-69. PMC: 2040108. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013. View

12.

Chepurnyi Y, Chernohorskyi D, Prykhodko D, Poutala A, Kopchak A . Reliability of orbital volume measurements based on computed tomography segmentation: Validation of different algorithms in orbital trauma patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020; 48(6):574-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.03.007. View

13.

Eppley B, Kilgo M, Coleman 3rd J . Cranial reconstruction with computer-generated hard-tissue replacement patient-matched implants: indications, surgical technique, and long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 109(3):864-71. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200203000-00005. View

14.

Gibelli D, Cellina M, Gibelli S, Oliva A, Termine G, Pucciarelli V . Assessing symmetry of zygomatic bone through three-dimensional segmentation on computed tomography scan and "mirroring" procedure: A contribution for reconstructive maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018; 46(4):600-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.02.012. View

15.

Lutz J, Assouline Vitale L, Graillon N, Foletti J, Schouman T . Standard and Customized Alloplastic Facial Implants Refining Orthognathic Surgery: Outcome Evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 78(10):1832.e1-1832.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.05.009. View

16.

Vougioukas V, Hubbe U, Van Velthoven V, Freiman T, Schramm A, Spetzger U . Neuronavigation-assisted cranial reconstruction. Neurosurgery. 2004; 55(1):162-7. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000126940.20441.e7. View

17.

Chepurnyi Y, Chernohorskyi D, Zhukovtceva O, Poutala A, Kopchak A . Automatic evaluation of the orbital shape after application of conventional and patient-specific implants: Correlation of initial trauma patterns and outcome. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020; 10(4):733-737. PMC: 7567054. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.10.003. View

18.

Ponnappan R, Serhan H, Zarda B, Patel R, Albert T, Vaccaro A . Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J. 2008; 9(3):263-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.002. View

19.

Lee S, Wu C, Lee S, Chen P . Cranioplasty using polymethyl methacrylate prostheses. J Clin Neurosci. 2008; 16(1):56-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2008.04.001. View

20.

Katsuragi Y, Kayano S, Akazawa S, Nagamatsu S, Koizumi T, Matsui T . Mandible reconstruction using the calcium-sulphate three-dimensional model and rubber stick: a new method, 'mould technique', for more accurate, efficient and simplified fabrication. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010; 64(5):614-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.08.010. View