Additively manufactured polyether ether ketone (PEEK) skull implant as an alternative to titanium mesh in cranioplasty

Jiaqi Zhang^1,2†, Yanwen Su^3,4†, Xiao Rao^1,2†, Huanhao Pang^3,4, Hui Zhu^3,4, Liang Liu^1,5, Ligang Chen^1,5, Dichen Li^3,4, Jiankang He^3,4*, Jianhua Peng^1,6*, Yong Jiang^1,2,7*

Show Less

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan 646000, China

² Laboratory of Neurological Diseases and Brain Function, the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China

³ State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

⁴ National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) Key Laboratory for Research and Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing Medical Devices, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

⁵ Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Neurosurgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China

⁶ Academician (Expert) Workstation of Sichuan Province, the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China

⁷ Institute of Epigenetics and Brain Science, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China

IJB 2023, 9(1), 634 https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v9i1.634

Submitted: 24 July 2022 | Accepted: 5 September 2022 | Published: 4 November 2022

© 2022 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Download PDF

Cite

XML

Abstract

Cranioplasty is used for skull defects, involving lifting the scalp and restoring the contour of the skull with the original skull piece, titanium mesh, or solid biomaterial. Additive manufacturing (AM) technology, known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, is now utilized by medical professionals to develop customized replicas of tissues, organs and bones, offering a valid option with perfect anatomic fitting in the individual and skeletal reconstruction. Here, we report a case that underwent titanium mesh cranioplasty 15 years ago. The poor appearance of the titanium mesh weakened the left eyebrow arch and resulted in the formation of a sinus tract. Cranioplasty was performed using an additively manufactured polyether ether ketone (PEEK) skull implant. PEEK skull implants have been successfully implanted without any complications. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of direct use of fused filament fabrication (FFF)-fabricated PEEK implant for cranial repair. The FFF-printed PEEK customized skull implant could possess simultaneously with adjustable material thickness and more complex structure, tunable mechanical properties, and low processing costs compared with traditional manufacturing processes. While meeting clinical needs, this production method is an appropriate alternative for promoting the use of PEEK materials in cranioplasty.

Keywords

Cranioplasty

Three-dimensional printing

Additive manufacturing

Polyether ether ketone

Fused filament fabrication

References

1. Ozoner B, 2021, Cranioplasty following severe traumatic brain injury: Role in neurorecovery. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 21(11): 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-021-01147-6

2. Rosinski CL, Patel S, Geever B, et al., 2020, A retrospective comparative analysis of titanium mesh and custom implants for cranioplasty. Neurosurgery, 86(1): E15–E22. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz358

3. Henry J, Amoo M, Taylor J, et al., 2021, Complications of cranioplasty in relation to material: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and meta-regression. Neurosurgery, 89(3): 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyab180

4. From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, A.S.o.N.C., et al., 2018, Multisociety consensus quality improvement revised consensus statement for endovascular therapy of acute ischemic stroke. Int J Stroke, 13(6): 612–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018778713

5. Zhang J, Tian W, Chen J, et al., 2019, The application of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in cranioplasty. Brain Res Bull, 153: 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2019.08.010

6. Rosenthal G, Ng I, Moscovici S, et al., 2014, Polyetheretherketone implants for the repair of large cranial defects: A 3-center experience. Neurosurgery, 75(5): 523–529; discussion 528–529. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000477

7. Alimi OA, Meijboom R, 2021, Current and future trends of additive manufacturing for chemistry applications: A review. J Mater Sci, 56(30): 16824–16850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-021-06362-7

8. Guzzi EA, Tibbitt MW, 2020, Additive manufacturing of precision biomaterials. Adv Mater, 32(13): e1901994. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201901994

9. Wang L, Liu X, Jiang T, et al., 2020, Three-dimensional printed polyether-ether-ketone implant for extensive chest wall reconstruction: A case report. Thorac Cancer, 11(9): 2709–2712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13560

10. Kang J, Zhang J, Zheng J, et al., 2021, 3D-printed PEEK implant for mandibular defects repair—A new method. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 116: 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104335

11. Liu C, Xia Z, 2022, Additive manufacturing innovation for musculoskeletal tissue repair and regeneration: From bench to bedside. Biomater Transl, 3(2): 99–101. https://doi.org/10.12336/biomatertransl.2022.02.002

12. Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Li X, et al., 2018, A large multicenter retrospective research on embedded cranioplasty and covered cranioplasty. World Neurosurg, 112: e645–e651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.114

13. Falland-Cheung L, Waddell J, Li K, et al., 2017, Investigation of the elastic modulus, tensile and flexural strength of five skull simulant materials for impact testing of a forensic skin/skull/brain model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 68: 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.02.023

14. Alkhaibary A, Alharbi A, Alnefaie N, et al., 2020, Cranioplasty: A comprehensive review of the history, materials, surgical aspects, and complications. World Neurosurg, 139: 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.211

15. Yang J, Sun T, Yuan Y, et al., 2020, Evaluation of titanium cranioplasty and polyetheretherketone cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: A prospective, multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore), 99(30): e21251. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000021251

16. Singh M, Ricci J, Dunn I, et al., 2016, Alloderm covering over titanium cranioplasty may minimize contour deformities in the frontal bone position. J Craniofac Surg, 27(5): 1292–1294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002796

17. Panayotov IV, Orti V, Cuisinier F, et al., 2016, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 27(7): 118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-016-5731-4

18. Wang Y, Wang J, Ji Z, et al., 2022, Application of bioprinting in ophthalmology. Int J Bioprint, 8(2): 552. https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v8i2.552

19. Kurtz SM, Devine JN, 2007, PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials, 28(32): 4845–4869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013

20. Scolozzi P, Martinez A, Jaques B, 2007, Complex orbitofronto-temporal reconstruction using computer-designed PEEK implant. J Craniofac Surg, 18(1): 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.scs.0000249359.56417.7e

21. Punchak M, Chung L, Lagman C, et al., 2017, Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci, 41: 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.03.028

22. Sun C, Kang J, Yang C, et al., 2021, Additive manufactured polyether-ether-ketone implants for orthopaedic applications: A narrative review. Biomater Transl. 3(2): 116–133. https://doi.org/10.12336/biomatertransl.2021.01.000

23. Watson J, Hatamleh M, Alwahadni A, et al., 2014, Correction of facial and mandibular asymmetry using a computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing prefabricated titanium implant. J Craniofac Surg, 25(3): 1099–1101. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000659

24. Wang Y, Shen J, Yan M, et al., 2021, Poly ether ether ketone and its composite powder prepared by thermally induced phase separation for high temperature selective laser sintering. Mater Design, 201: 1095101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109510

25. Feng P, Wu Ping, Gao C, et al., 2018, A multimaterial scaffold with tunable properties: Toward bone tissue repair. Adv Sci (Weinh), 5(6): 1700817. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201700817

26. Yang C, Tian X, Li D, et al., 2017, Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material. J Mater Process Technol, 248: 1–7.

27. Zhao F, Li D, Jin Z, 2018, Preliminary investigation of polyether-ether-ketone based on fused deposition modeling for medical applications. Materials (Basel), 11(2): 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11020288

28. Haleem A, Javaid M, 2019, Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and its 3D printed implants applications in medical field: An overview. Clin Epidemiol Global Health, 7(4): 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2019.01.003

29. Sharma N, Aghlmandi S, Dalcanale F, et al., 2021, Quantitative assessment of point-of-care 3D-printed patient-specific polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranial implants. Int J Mol Sci, 22(16): 8521. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168521

Previous article in this issue

Next article in this issue

International Journal of Bioprinting, Electronic ISSN: 2424-8002 Print ISSN: 2424-7723, Published by AccScience Publishing