Anzeige
Erschienen in:
02.03.2024 | Original Article
Thickness and design features of clinical cranial implants—what should automated methods strive to replicate?
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Ausgabe 4/2024
EinloggenAktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by
Abstract
Purpose
New deep learning and statistical shape modelling approaches aim to automate the design process for patient-specific cranial implants, as highlighted by the MICCAI AutoImplant Challenges. To ensure applicability, it is important to determine if the training data used in developing these algorithms represent the geometry of implants designed for clinical use.
Methods
Calavera Surgical Design provided a dataset of 206 post-craniectomy skull geometries and their clinically used implants. The MUG500+ dataset includes 29 post-craniectomy skull geometries and implants designed for automating design. For both implant and skull shapes, the inner and outer cortical surfaces were segmented, and the thickness between them was measured. For the implants, a ‘rim’ was defined that transitions from the repaired defect to the surrounding skull. For unilateral defect cases, skull implants were mirrored to the contra-lateral side and thickness differences were quantified.
Results
The average thickness of the clinically used implants was 6.0 ± 0.5 mm, which approximates the thickness on the contra-lateral side of the skull (relative difference of −0.3 ± 1.4 mm). The average thickness of the MUG500+ implants was 2.9 ± 1.0 mm, significantly thinner than the intact skull thickness (relative difference of 2.9 ± 1.2 mm). Rim transitions in the clinical implants (average width of 8.3 ± 3.4 mm) were used to cap and create a smooth boundary with the skull.
Conclusions
For implant modelers or manufacturers, this shape analysis quantified differences of cranial implants (thickness, rim width, surface area, and volume) to help guide future automated design algorithms. After skull completion, a thicker implant can be more versatile for cases involving muscle hollowing or thin skulls, and wider rims can smooth over the defect margins to provide more stability. For clinicians, the differing measurements and implant designs can help inform the options available for their patient specific treatment.