Advertisement

Abstract

Prefabricated patient-specific cranial implants are especially useful for large cranial defects. We present CAD tools for large cranial implants that include validation of fit prior to rapid prototype fabrication. Our CAD process first determines whether the prototype implant surface intersects adjacent soft-tissue structures via collision detection. If so, we measure the volume of both the intersected dura and unoccupied area under the implant. These data are used to determine whether the prototype implant requires modification. If modification is necessary, we deform the prototype implant surface via a thin plate spline warp. Second, we interactively create and verify the implant taper surface that connects the external and internal implant surfaces. The taper surface seats the implant onto the patient’s cranial defect site. The taper and patient’s skull surfaces may contact but must not intersect one another. Results from tests on five patient data sets show our CAD and validation methods result in implant designs which are an improvement over, and not feasible by, current manual implant preparation methods.

Keywords

Dura Mater Collision Detection Cranial Defect Collision Detection Algorithm Cranial Implant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Voigt, M., Schaefer, D.J., Andree, C.: Three-dimensional reconstruction of a defect of the frontozygomatic area by custom made Proplast II implant. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 23, 391–394 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wehmöller, M., Eufnger, H., Kruse, D., Ma berg, W.: CAD by processing of computed tomography data and CAM of individually designed prostheses. Int. J. Oral Max. Surg. 24, 90–97 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carr, J.C., Fright, W.R., Beatson, R.K.: Surface interpolation with radial basis functions for medical imaging. IEEE T. Med. Imaging 16, 96–107 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eufinger, H., Saylor, B.: Computer-Assisted Prefabrication of Individual Craniofacial Implants. AORN J. 74, 648–654 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bookstein, F.L.: Principal Warps: Thin-Plate Splines and the Decomposition of Deformations. IEEE T. Pattern Anal. 11, 567–585 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, D., Min, K.J., Bond, A.: Computer Aided Design of Pre-Fabricated Cranial Plates, J. Craniofac. Surg. (2003) (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Min, K.J.: Computer Aided Design of Cranial Implants Using Deformable Templates, Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Ohio (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joffe, J.M., Nicoll, S.R., Richards, R., Linney, A.D., Harris, M.: Validation of computer assisted manufacture of titanium plates for cranioplasty. Int. J. Oral. Max. Surg. 28, 309–313 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gottschalk, S., Lin, M.C., Manocha, D.: OBB-Tree: A hierarchical structure for rapid interference detection. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 1996 Conference Proceedings, ACM SIGGRAPH. Annual Conference Series, pp. 171–180. Addison Wesley, New Orleans (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gueziec, A., Hummel, R.: Exploiting triangulated surface extraction using tetrahedral decomposition. IEEE T. Vis. Comput. Graphics 1, 328–342 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyoung-june Min
    • 1
  • David Dean
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland, and Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations