3D-Printed Skull Implanted in American Patient’s Head

By Breanna Draxler | March 8, 2013 10:44 am

There is no shortage of new and interesting uses for 3D printing technology. This week one more has been added to the list, and it’s pretty darn impressive: replacing 75 percent of a patient’s skull with a 3D-printed implant.

The skull implant was approved by the FDA last month, and the surgery itself took place on March 4, as reported by Tech News Daily. The implant was made from a type of thermoplastic called polyetherketoneketone (PEKK). This material is moldable above a certain temperature, and returns to a solid state when it cools. Unlike most plastics, thermoplastics’ long polymer chains do not break down during the melting process.

As with all 3D printing, the process begins with a digital scan to use as a blueprint. In this case that would be a CT scan or MRI of the patient’s skull. Then the printer makes a new version of the skull’s missing piece, layer by layer. The printed version mimics a real skull in many ways, but also adds detailing on the surface and edges of the implant to encourage cell growth. This can also help existing bone attach to the implant more easily. The patient-specific products can be cranked out in about two weeks.

Patients who have suffered car accidents or head trauma would benefit from this technology, as well as those with cancerous bone tissue in the skull. And unlike existing implants made from materials like titanium, the plastic implants are light, non-corroding and won’t set off the metal detector at the airport.

The 3D-printed implant was manufactured by a Connecticut-based company called Oxford Performance Materials. Although the company already ships its 3D-printed implants overseas, this marks the first time such a surgery has been given the go-ahead in the U.S. In the future the company hopes to expand its production to include replacements for all kinds of bones in the body.


Image courtesy of Oxford Performance Material

  • disqus_pYaYGlFf3z

    If the brown material is what has been printed for insertion into the patient, then it does not look 75%. It has to be the brown section, as the rest could not feasibly be inserted into a patient. Could the author please clarify how the figure of 75% was arrived at.

    • carolbeth1@roadrunner.com

      Perhaps a decimal is missing, and it is 7.5%!?

  • http://www.facebook.com/larryc43230 Larry Cunningham

    I’m thinking that 75% figure almost has to be a misprint. How could anyone survive having that much of their skull destroyed, and how, surgically, could that be replaced in one piece? Or is there a significant piece of the story missing?

  • Danmanium

    Perhaps the image is not an actual picture of the implant that was used in the surgery rather simply an example of the technology for illustrative purposes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/larryc43230 Larry Cunningham

      That’s certainly possible, but I still have trouble imagining any possible way that 75% of someone’s skull could be replaced in one piece, no matter which 75%. Was the actual implant created by the 3D printer created in two or more pieces, perhaps? And I still marvel at the possibility that anyone could survive the loss of that much skull in the first place.

  • shellback

    Once again the Federal government stops real medical advance, even though it was made here. Can anyone defend anything our country has done in the last 50 years? I am only 45, but I have seen enough to tell me we are slipping into the stone age again.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar