[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.241.199. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 11, 1976

Methyl Methacrylate

Author Affiliations

Melbourne, Fla

JAMA. 1976;236(15):1694. doi:10.1001/jama.1976.03270160018018
Abstract

To the Editor.—  "Hazard of Methyl Methacrylate to Operating Room Personnel" (235:2652,1976) focused on the problem of allergenic sensitization. In a recent investigation to find a suitable alternative material for frontal cranioplasty, we had the occasion to review other potential disadvantages of this widely used alloplastic material.1First, it is difficult to handle in the operating theater because of heat produced during the exothermic mixing process. Second, malleability is absent after it sets. Third, most surgeons are loathe to place the acrylic at a primary procedure because of potential infection, necessitating a temporary cosmetic deformity and a subsequent trip to surgery for eventual reconstruction. Fourth, the plastic implant is vulnerable to trauma with resulting fragmentation and, in certain cases, brain injury.2 Cranioplast can also diffuse through intact surgical rubber gloves and cause contact dermatitis.3Hence, methyl methacrylate, one of the most valuable and widely used alloplastic surgical

×