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

Charu Guleria; Shrish Nalin; Dinesh Kumar

doi:10.1055/s-0043-1777056

Indian Journal of Neurosurgery, Table of Contents

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

Authors

Charu Guleria

¹Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
Shrish Nalin

²Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
Dinesh Kumar

²Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India

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

Full Text

References

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
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
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
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
5 Monro A. Observations on the structure and functions of the nervous system. Lond Med J 1783; 4 (02) 113-135
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
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
8 Kshettry VR, Mindea SA, Batjer HH. The management of cranial injuries in antiquity and beyond. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 23 (01) E8
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
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
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
12 Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 36 (04) E19
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
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
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
16 Al-Tamimi YZ, Sinha P, Trivedi M. et al. Comparison of acrylic and titanium cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg 2012; 26 (04) 510-513
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 (01) 19-32
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
39 Quinn JV, Wells GA. An assessment of clinical wound evaluation scales. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5 (06) 583-586
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
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
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
43 Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5 (01) 69