Frank Mascha1, Karsten Winter2, Sebastian Pietzka3, Marcus Heufelder3, Alexander Schramm4, Frank Wilde3. 1. Department of Oral and Plastic Maxillofacial Surgery, Military Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: mail@frank-mascha.de. 2. Institute of Anatomy, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Germany. 3. Department of Oral and Plastic Maxillofacial Surgery, Military Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 4. Department of Oral and Plastic Maxillofacial Surgery, Military Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new method in mandible reconstruction has recently been developed using patient-specific mandible reconstruction plates (PSMP) after preoperative computer planning using CAD/CAM procedures. To transfer the virtual planned position of the PSMP into the intraoperative situs resection margins and plate position is determined by using surgical guides made by CAD/CAM procedures as well (PSMP-method). METHODS: Mandibular reconstruction with the PSMP-method was performed on 18 patients. The study included sole alloplastic reconstruction cases (AP, n = 10) and microvascular osseous reconstruction cases (MV, n = 8). Pre- and postoperative CT-scans were evaluated by measuring distances between corresponding landmarks on the mandibular rami. The difference was used to evaluate reconstruction accuracy. RESULTS: The median deviation of all distances was 1.13 mm for PSMP-method including all cases. For AP-group, the median deviation was 0,80 mm, for MV-group it was 2,47 mm. There was a high significant difference between both groups (AP and MV). Larger mandibular resections in combination with the need of positioning the surgical guides in the region of the upper condyle seemed to reduce reconstruction-accuracy. This was found more often in MV-group as in the AP-group. CONCLUSIONS: PSMP-method seems to be an effective and satisfying method for accurate mandibular reconstruction. Microvascular reconstruction seems less accurate than sole alloplastic reconstruction. Larger resections of the mandible and technical more challenging approaches up to the mandibular condyle might explain this result.
BACKGROUND: A new method in mandible reconstruction has recently been developed using patient-specific mandible reconstruction plates (PSMP) after preoperative computer planning using CAD/CAM procedures. To transfer the virtual planned position of the PSMP into the intraoperative situs resection margins and plate position is determined by using surgical guides made by CAD/CAM procedures as well (PSMP-method). METHODS: Mandibular reconstruction with the PSMP-method was performed on 18 patients. The study included sole alloplastic reconstruction cases (AP, n = 10) and microvascular osseous reconstruction cases (MV, n = 8). Pre- and postoperative CT-scans were evaluated by measuring distances between corresponding landmarks on the mandibular rami. The difference was used to evaluate reconstruction accuracy. RESULTS: The median deviation of all distances was 1.13 mm for PSMP-method including all cases. For AP-group, the median deviation was 0,80 mm, for MV-group it was 2,47 mm. There was a high significant difference between both groups (AP and MV). Larger mandibular resections in combination with the need of positioning the surgical guides in the region of the upper condyle seemed to reduce reconstruction-accuracy. This was found more often in MV-group as in the AP-group. CONCLUSIONS: PSMP-method seems to be an effective and satisfying method for accurate mandibular reconstruction. Microvascular reconstruction seems less accurate than sole alloplastic reconstruction. Larger resections of the mandible and technical more challenging approaches up to the mandibular condyle might explain this result.
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: Jan J Lang; Mirjam Bastian; Peter Foehr; Michael Seebach; Jochen Weitz; Constantin von Deimling; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Carina M Micheler; Nikolas J Wilhelm; Christian U Grosse; Marco Kesting; Rainer Burgkart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paweł Turek; Paweł Pakla; Grzegorz Budzik; Bogumił Lewandowski; Łukasz Przeszłowski; Tomasz Dziubek; Sławomir Wolski; Jan Frańczak Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Davide Sozzi; Andrea Filippi; Gabriele Canzi; Elena De Ponti; Alberto Bozzetti; Giorgio Novelli Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Simon Spalthoff; Narin Nejati-Rad; Björn Rahlf; Philipp Jehn; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Fritjof Lentge; Philippe Korn Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 5.738