[PEEK customized implant for skull esthetic reconstruction]

Cranial defects from craniotomies often leave visible deformities. Standard approaches like bone grafts or cement may fail to restore symmetry. These methods can also lack durability or conformability. Patients may face long-term aesthetic concerns due to imperfect reconstruction. Prior research has shown that titanium implants offer structural stability. However, titanium can be heavy and difficult to shape for complex contours. No prior work had resolved the balance between aesthetics and practicality. This gap motivated exploration of alternative materials like PEEK.

This case study aimed to evaluate PEEK as a material for cranial reconstruction. The specific problem addressed was restoring symmetry after large cranial defects. The motivation stemmed from limitations in current reconstructive methods. The authors sought to demonstrate PEEK's suitability for aesthetic purposes. They also aimed to compare PEEK with titanium in terms of usability and outcomes. Balloon scalp expansion was used to facilitate implant placement. The study focused on a single patient to assess feasibility and satisfaction. The goal was to provide a practical alternative to existing options.

The PEEK implant was designed using 3D CT reconstruction of the patient’s skull. A digital model was created to match the defect's shape and size. The implant was fabricated using PEEK material due to its biocompatibility. The material was chosen for its strength and conformability to cranial contours. Balloon scalp expansion was performed before implant placement. This step ensured adequate soft tissue coverage for the implant. The surgical procedure involved precise placement and fixation of the PEEK implant. Postoperative recovery was monitored for complications and aesthetic outcomes.

The PEEK implant successfully restored cranial symmetry in the patient. Aesthetic results were described as satisfactory by both the patient and surgeon. Postoperative recovery was short and uncomplicated. The implant provided adequate structural support without complications. PEEK was found to be lighter than titanium, improving patient comfort. The material was easier to shape and adapt to the defect's contours. No adverse reactions to the PEEK material were observed. The case demonstrated PEEK’s potential as a viable reconstructive option.

The authors concluded that PEEK is a suitable material for cranial reconstruction. The implant provided both structural and aesthetic benefits in the reported case. PEEK’s biocompatibility and conformability were key advantages. The material’s lighter weight compared to titanium was a practical benefit. The use of balloon scalp expansion facilitated implant placement. The short and simple postoperative course supported PEEK’s viability. The authors propose that PEEK is a good alternative to titanium implants. They suggest that PEEK may be particularly suited for aesthetic reconstruction.