Application of 3D Modeling and 3D Printing Methods in Preoperative Planning of Cranioplasty and Preoperative Personalized Training in Treatment Cranio-synostoses

On the example of a clinical case, we used software 3D modeling of the reconstruction of the shape of the skull of a child aged 2 years and 5 months with metopic craniosynostosis, as well as manual training using a craniotomy on an individual 3D model of the patient's skull before surgery. The use of a plastic 3D model of a particular patient made it possible to conduct a “trial, training operation” to work out the optimal osteotomy geometry. An intraoperative evaluation of the result obtained on a visual scanner was also carried out.

Purpose of the study. Improving the result of surgical treatment of a child with metopic craniosynostosis using preoperative 3D planning and personalized simulation of a planned operation. For the purpose of preoperative planning we used an algorithm with the inclusion of 3D technologies: preoperative modeling on software, simulation of surgery on plastic models of the skull, surgical intervention along craniotomy lines, intraoperative visual scanning and assessment of the results of skull reconstruction.

Conclusion. The preoperative 3D modeling of the skull formed a complete plan for individual reconstructive changes in the skull in our patient with metopic craniosynostosis over the age of two years, and allowed us to perform a “trial, training operation” on a plastic model to work out the optimal osteotomy geometry. This made it possible to provide the optimal technique for a real operation, speed up its implementation, reduce trauma and blood loss, the duration of anesthesia, and, in combination, improve the results of surgical treatment.

1. Aoun RJ, Hamade YJ, Zammar SG, Patel NP, Bendok BR. Futuristic three-dimensional printing and personalized neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2015;84:870–1.

2. Ghizoni E, de Souza JPSAS, Raposo-Amaral CE, et al. 3D-Printed Craniosynostosis Model: New Simulation Surgical Tool. World Neurosurgery. 2018;109:356-361. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.025

3. Goyal A, Lu VM, Yolcu YU, Elminawy M, Daniels DJ. Endoscopic versus open approach in craniosynostosis repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Childs Nerv Syst. 2018;34(9):1627-1637. doi:10.1007/s00381-018-3852-4

4. Kajdic N, Spazzapan P, Velnar T. Craniosynostosis - Recognition, clinical characteristics, and treatment. Bosn J of Basic Med Sci. Published online June 17, 2017. doi:10.17305/bjbms.2017.2083

5. Shlobin NA, Baticulon RE, Ortega CA, et al. Global Epidemiology of Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurgery. Published online 2022:S1878875022007331. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.05.093

6. Soldozy S, Yağmurlu K, Akyeampong DK, et al. Three-dimensional printing and craniosynostosis surgery. Childs Nerv Syst. 2021;37(8):2487-2495. doi:10.1007/s00381-021-05133-8

7. Thompson DR, Zurakowski D, Haberkern CM, et al. Endoscopic Versus Open Repair for Craniosynostosis in Infants Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Outcomes: A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2018;126(3):968-975. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002454

8. Touzé R, Bremond-Gignac D, Robert MP. Ophthalmological management in craniosynostosis. Neurochirurgie. 2019;65(5):310-317. doi:10.1016/j.neuchi.2019.09.016