Literature DB >> 29460063

Virtual modeling, stereolithography, and intraoperative CT guidance for the optimization of sagittal synostosis reconstruction: a technical note.

Andrew J Kobets1, Adam Ammar2, Jonathan Nakhla2, Aleka Scoco2, Rani Nasser2, James T Goodrich2, Rick Abbott2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Sagittal synostosis affects 1 in 1000 live births and may result in increased intracranial pressure, hindrance of normal neural development, and cosmetic deformity due to scaphocephaly. Historically, several approaches have been utilized for surgical correction and recently, computed tomography (CT)-guided reconstruction procedures are increasingly used. In this report, the authors describe the use of a CT-derived virtual and stereolithographic (3D printed) craniofacial models, which are used to guide intraoperative bone placement, and intraoperative CT guidance for confirmation of bone placement, to ensure the accuracy of surgical correction of scaphocephaly, as demonstrated to parents.
METHODS: Preoperative high-resolution CT imaging was used to construct 3D image sets of the skulls of two infants (a 14-month-old female and a 6-month-old male) with scaphocephaly. These 3D image sets were then used to create a virtual model of the proposed surgical correction for each of the infants' deformities, which was then printed and made available for use intraoperatively to plan the bone flap, fashion the bone cuts, and optimize graft placement. After the remodeling, adherence to the preoperative plan was assessed by overlaying a CT scan of the remodeled skull with the virtual model. Deviations from the preoperative model were noted.
RESULTS: Both patients had excellent postoperative cosmetic correction of head shape and contouring. The mean operative time was 5 h, blood loss was 100 ml, and one child required modification of the subocciput after intraoperative imaging showed a deviation of the reconstruction from the surgical goal as depicted by the preoperative model.
CONCLUSION: The addition of neuro-navigation to stereolithographic modeling ensured the accuracy of the reconstruction for our patients and provided greater confidence to both surgeons and parents. While unisutural cases are presented for clarity, correction was still required for one patient. The cost of the models and the additional CT required must be weighed against the complexity of the procedure and possibly reserved for patients with potentially complicated corrections.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT guidance; Craniosynostosis; Reconstruction; Scaphocephaly; Stereolithography; Virtual model

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29460063     DOI: 10.1007/s00381-018-3746-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst        ISSN: 0256-7040            Impact factor:   1.475


  22 in total

1.  The impact of pediatric-specific dose modulation curves on radiation dose and image quality in head computed tomography.

Authors:  Joana Santos; Shane Foley; Graciano Paulo; Mark F McEntee; Louise Rainford
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-08-05

2.  Immediate correction of sagittal synostosis, 1978.

Authors:  John A Jane; Milton T Edgerton; J William Futrell; Tae Sung Park
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.115

3.  The aesthetic outcome of surgical correction for sagittal synostosis can be reliably scored by a novel method of preoperative and postoperative visual assessment.

Authors:  Charlotte L Bendon; Hayley P Johnson; Andrew D Judge; Steven A Wall; David Johnson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Re-thinking 3D printing: A novel approach to guided facial contouring.

Authors:  Alastair Darwood; Jonathan Collier; Naresh Joshi; William E Grant; Veronique Sauret-Jackson; Robin Richards; Andrew Dawood; Niall Kirkpatrick
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Mandibular reconstruction using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing: an analysis of surgical results.

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

6.  Computer-aided design and manufacturing in craniosynostosis surgery.

Authors:  Mitchel Seruya; Daniel E Borsuk; Saami Khalifian; Benjamin S Carson; Nicholas M Dalesio; Amir H Dorafshar
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  Sagittal synostosis: quantitative assessment of presenting deformity and surgical results based on CT scans.

Authors:  J C Posnick; K Y Lin; P Chen; D Armstrong
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Sagittal craniosynostosis: surgical outcomes and long-term growth.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Fearon; Emily B McLaughlin; John C Kolar
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Individualized template-guided remodeling of the fronto-orbital bandeau in craniosynostosis corrective surgery.

Authors:  Helena Pappa; David Richardson; Andy A C Webb; Paul May
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.046

10.  Use of three-dimensional, CAD/CAM-assisted, virtual surgical simulation and planning in the pediatric craniofacial population.

Authors:  Rachel Gray; Alexander Gougoutas; Vinh Nguyen; Jesse Taylor; Nicholas Bastidas
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 1.675

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Three-dimensional printing and craniosynostosis surgery.

Authors:  Sauson Soldozy; Kaan Yağmurlu; Daniel K Akyeampong; Rebecca Burke; Peter F Morgenstern; Robert F Keating; Jonathan S Black; John A Jane; Hasan R Syed
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 1.475

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.