Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2024; 13(01): 003-010
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777056
Review Article

A Scoping Review to Evaluate the Clinical Efficacy of Indigenously Produced, Patient-Specific Acrylic Cranial Prosthesis in Decompressive Craniectomy in India

Charu Guleria
1   Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Shrish Nalin 
2   Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Dinesh Kumar 
2   Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Health Technology Assessment in India assesses, evaluates, and carries out cost-effectiveness of available health technologies in the country for evidence-based decision-making. Current study carried out a scoping review to assess clinical efficacy of poly-methyl-methacrylate (PMMA) after decompressive craniectomy using various prototyping techniques in published literature. The O'Malley methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis for Scoping Reviews—PRISMA-ScR—checklist were used to assess published literature from year 2008 to 2023. A total of 507 records were identified after searching electronic databases. After removing duplicate studies and studies that did not meet inclusion criteria, a total of 12 studies were included for review. A total of four studies were described as experimental and eight were case reports/series. The sample size of intervention studies varied between 10 and 30 patients with a mean age of 36.7 years. In a total of seven studies, cranioplasty was done by a self-made PMMA prosthesis fabricated using a novel three-dimensional-printed cranial model fabrication technique. In experimental study, objective criteria like operative Glasgow Outcome Scale, Cranial Index of Symmetry score, and Visual Analog Score for Cosmesis were employed. Clinical assessment for cranial symmetry was observed favorable for PMMA with fewer complications, though sample size was inadequate (range: 10–30) with comparator group in two studies.

Keywords

decompressive Craniectomy - efficacy - neurosurgery - PMMA


Publication History

Article published online:
23 November 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Tajsic T. et al. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: consensus statement. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161 (07) 1261-1274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke and transient ischaemic attack in over 16s: diagnosis and initial management [Internet]; 2019. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng128/resources/stroke-and-transient-ischaemic-attack-in-over-16s-diagnosis-and-initial-management-pdf-66141665603269
    PubMed
  • 3 Avanali R, Gopalakrishnan MS, Devi BI, Bhat DI, Shukla DP, Shanbhag NC. Role of decompressive craniectomy in the management of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hemphill III JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS. et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2015; 46 (07) 2032-2060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Monro A. Observations on the structure and functions of the nervous system. Lond Med J 1783; 4 (02) 113-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Di Ieva A, Gaetani P, Matula C, Sherif C, Skopec M, Tschabitscher M. Berengario da Carpi: a pioneer in neurotraumatology. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (05) 1461-1470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Panourias IG, Skiadas PK, Sakas DE, Marketos SG. Hippocrates: a pioneer in the treatment of head injuries. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (01) 181-189 , discussion 181–189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kshettry VR, Mindea SA, Batjer HH. The management of cranial injuries in antiquity and beyond. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 23 (01) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, Lind CRP, Geelhoed E. A randomised controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty: long-term follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2018; 160 (05) 885-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Honeybul S, Morrison DA, Ho KM, Lind CRP, Geelhoed E. A randomized controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty. J Neurosurg 2017; 126 (01) 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Li LM, Timofeev I, Czosnyka M, Hutchinson PJA. Review article: the surgical approach to the management of increased intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury. Anesth Analg 2010; 111 (03) 736-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 36 (04) E19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wiggins A, Austerberry R, Morrison D, Ho KM, Honeybul S. Cranioplasty with custom-made titanium plates–14 years experience. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (02) 248-256 , discussion 256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kwarcinski J, Boughton P, Ruys A, Doolan A, van Gelder J. Cranioplasty and craniofacial reconstruction: a review of implant material, manufacturing method and infection risk. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 2017; 7 (03) 276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ganau M, Cebula H, Fricia M. et al. Surgical preference regarding different materials for custom-made allograft cranioplasty in patients with calvarial defects: results from an internal audit covering the last 20 years. J Clin Neurosci 2020; 74: 98-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al-Tamimi YZ, Sinha P, Trivedi M. et al. Comparison of acrylic and titanium cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg 2012; 26 (04) 510-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Konofaos P, Thompson RH, Wallace RD. Long-term outcomes with porous polyethylene implant reconstruction of large craniofacial defects. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 79 (05) 467-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Basu B, Bhaskar N, Barui S. et al. Evaluation of implant properties, safety profile and clinical efficacy of patient-specific acrylic prosthesis in cranioplasty using 3D binderjet printed cranium model: a pilot study. J Clin Neurosci 2021; 85: 132-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gopal S, Rudrappa S, Sekar A, Preethish-Kumar V, Masapu D. Customized and cost-effective 3D printed mold for cranioplasty: India's first single center experience. Neurol India 2021; 69 (03) 611-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shastri S, Sathyanarayna S, Nagaraja SB. et al. The journey to antiretroviral therapy in Karnataka, India: who was lost on the road?. J Int AIDS Soc 2013; 16 (01) 18502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pandey A, Ploubidis GB, Clarke L, Dandona L. Trends in catastrophic health expenditure in India: 1993 to 2014. Bull World Health Organ 2018; 96 (01) 18-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dwivedi R, Pradhan J, Athe R. Measuring catastrophe in paying for healthcare: a comparative methodological approach by using National Sample Survey, India. Int J Health Plann Manage 2021; 36 (05) 1887-1915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dabak SV, Pilasant S, Mehndiratta A. et al. Budgeting for a billion: applying health technology assessment (HTA) for universal health coverage in India. Health Res Policy Syst 2018; 16 (01) 115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 (01) 19-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (07) 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sahoo M, Pradhan J. Using three delay model to understand the social factors responsible for neonatal deaths among displaced tribal communities in India. J Immigr Minor Health 2021; 23 (02) 265-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Desai JB. Cost-effective technique of fabrication of polymethyl methacrylate based cranial implant using three-dimensional printed moulds and wax elimination technique. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (04) 1259-1263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sahoo N, Roy ID, Desai AP, Gupta V. Comparative evaluation of autogenous calvarial bone graft and alloplastic materials for secondary reconstruction of cranial defects. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (01) 79-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Thakur A, Chauhan D, Viswambaran M, Yadav RK, Sharma D. Rapid prototyping technology for cranioplasty: a case series. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019; 19 (02) 184-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chauhan D, Chattopadhyay PK, Thakur A. Reconstruction of cranial defect with patient-specific implants: four different cost-effective techniques. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2022; 13 (01) 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kaur H, Nanda A, Koli D. et al. An alternate vista in rehabilitation of cranial defects: combining digital and manual techniques to fabricate a hybrid cranioplast. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (04) 1313-1315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Goyal S, Goyal MK. Restoration of large cranial defect for cranioplasty with alloplastic cranial implant material: a case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014; 14 (02) 191-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hallur N, Goudar G, Sikkerimath B, Gudi SS, Patil RS. Reconstruction of large cranial defect with alloplastic material (bone cement-cold cure polymethyl-methacrylate resin). J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2010; 9 (02) 191-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gupta L, Aparna I, Balakrishnan D, Deenadayalan L, Hegde P, Agarwal P. Cranioplasty with custom made alloplastic prosthetic implant: a case report. World J Clin Cases 2014; 2 (09) 482-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Simon P, Mohan J, Selvaraj S, Saravanan BS, Pari P. Craniofacial prosthetic reconstruction using polymethyl methacrylate implant: a case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014; 14 (Suppl. 01) 303-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Da Costa GC, Aras MA, Chalakkal P. A unique flask design for processing cranial prosthesis using heat cured acrylic - a case report. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10 (09) ZD14-ZD16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Klemenc-Ketis Z, Bacovnik-Jansa U, Ogorevc M, Kersnik J. Outcome predictors of Glasgow Outcome Scale score in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2011; 17 (06) 509-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Broekema AEH, Molenberg R, Kuijlen JMA, Groen RJM, Reneman MF, Soer R. The Odom Criteria: validated at last: a clinimetric evaluation in cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (14) 1301-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Quinn JV, Wells GA. An assessment of clinical wound evaluation scales. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5 (06) 583-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Santiago GF, Terner J, Wolff A. et al. Post-neurosurgical temporal deformities: various techniques for correction and associated complications. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (07) 1723-1729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Randazzo M, Pisapia JM, Singh N, Thawani JP. 3D printing in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Surg Neurol Int 2016; 7 (Suppl. 33) S801-S809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lannon M, Algird A, Alsunbul W, Wang BP. 209 Novel 3D printing for complex cranial reconstruction in neurosurgery - a case series. Canadian J Neurol Sci 2021; 48 (s3): S80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5 (01) 69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar