OBJECTIVES: The reconstruction of large facial bony defects using microvascular transplants requires extensive surgery to achieve full rehabilitation of form and function. The purpose of this study is to measure the agreement between virtual plans and the actual results of maxillofacial reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 30 subjects receiving maxillofacial reconstruction with a preoperative virtual planning. Parameters including defect size, position, angle and volume of the transplanted segments were compared between the virtual plan and the real outcome using paired t test. RESULTS: A total of 63 bone segments were transplanted. The mean differences between the virtual planning and the postoperative situation were for the defect sizes 1.17 mm (95 % confidence interval (CI) (-.21 to 2.56 mm); p = 0.094), for the resection planes 1.69 mm (95 % CI (1.26-2.11); p = 0.033) and 10.16° (95 % CI (8.36°-11.96°); p < 0.001) and for the planes of the donor segments 10.81° (95 % CI (9.44°-12.17°); p < 0.001) The orientation of the segments differed by 6.68° (95 % CI (5.7°-7.66°); p < 0.001) from the virtual plan; the length of the segments differed by -0.12 mm (95 % CI (0.89-0.65 mm); not significant (n.s.)), respectively, while the volume differed by 73.3 % (95 % CI (69.4-77.6 %); p < 0.001). The distance between the transplanted segments and the remaining bone was 1.49 mm (95 % CI (1.24-1.74); p < 0.001) and between the segments 1.49 mm (95 % CI (1.16-1.81); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual plans for mandibular and maxillofacial reconstruction can be realised with excellent match. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These highly satisfactory postoperative results are the basis for an optimal functional and aesthetic reconstruction in a single surgical procedure. The technique should be further investigated in larger study populations and should be further improved.
OBJECTIVES: The reconstruction of large facial bony defects using microvascular transplants requires extensive surgery to achieve full rehabilitation of form and function. The purpose of this study is to measure the agreement between virtual plans and the actual results of maxillofacial reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 30 subjects receiving maxillofacial reconstruction with a preoperative virtual planning. Parameters including defect size, position, angle and volume of the transplanted segments were compared between the virtual plan and the real outcome using paired t test. RESULTS: A total of 63 bone segments were transplanted. The mean differences between the virtual planning and the postoperative situation were for the defect sizes 1.17 mm (95 % confidence interval (CI) (-.21 to 2.56 mm); p = 0.094), for the resection planes 1.69 mm (95 % CI (1.26-2.11); p = 0.033) and 10.16° (95 % CI (8.36°-11.96°); p < 0.001) and for the planes of the donor segments 10.81° (95 % CI (9.44°-12.17°); p < 0.001) The orientation of the segments differed by 6.68° (95 % CI (5.7°-7.66°); p < 0.001) from the virtual plan; the length of the segments differed by -0.12 mm (95 % CI (0.89-0.65 mm); not significant (n.s.)), respectively, while the volume differed by 73.3 % (95 % CI (69.4-77.6 %); p < 0.001). The distance between the transplanted segments and the remaining bone was 1.49 mm (95 % CI (1.24-1.74); p < 0.001) and between the segments 1.49 mm (95 % CI (1.16-1.81); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual plans for mandibular and maxillofacial reconstruction can be realised with excellent match. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These highly satisfactory postoperative results are the basis for an optimal functional and aesthetic reconstruction in a single surgical procedure. The technique should be further investigated in larger study populations and should be further improved.
Authors: Basel Sharaf; Jamie P Levine; David L Hirsch; Jairo A Bastidas; Bradley A Schiff; Evan S Garfein Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: David L Hirsch; Evan S Garfein; Andrew M Christensen; Katherine A Weimer; Pierre B Saddeh; Jamie P Levine Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Benjamin D Foley; Wesly P Thayer; Adam Honeybrook; Samuel McKenna; Steven Press Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Thomas Mücke; Frank Hölzle; Denys John Loeffelbein; Andreas Ljubic; Marco Kesting; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; David A Mitchell Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2010-06-29
Authors: Philipp Pohlenz; Marco Blessmann; Felix Blake; Lei Li; Rainer Schmelzle; Max Heiland Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: T Shpitzer; P C Neligan; P J Gullane; B J Boyd; E Gur; L E Rotstein; D H Brown; J C Irish; J E Freeman Journal: Head Neck Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: D D Jewer; J B Boyd; R T Manktelow; R M Zuker; I B Rosen; P J Gullane; L E Rotstein; J E Freeman Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Zachary S Peacock; John C Magill; Brad J Tricomi; Brian A Murphy; Vladimir Nikonovskiy; Nobuhiko Hata; Laurent Chauvin; Maria J Troulis Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Michael Knitschke; Sophia Sonnabend; Fritz Christian Roller; Jörn Pons-Kühnemann; Daniel Schmermund; Sameh Attia; Philipp Streckbein; Hans-Peter Howaldt; Sebastian Böttger Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Hongyang Ma; Sohaib Shujaat; Jeroen Van Dessel; Yi Sun; Michel Bila; Jan Vranckx; Constantinus Politis; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 6.244