Literature DB >> 33088705

Automatic evaluation of the orbital shape after application of conventional and patient-specific implants: Correlation of initial trauma patterns and outcome.

Yurii Chepurnyi1, Denis Chernohorskyi1, Olena Zhukovtceva1, Arto Poutala2, Andriy Kopchak1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision of orbital shape reconstructions using either conventional plates (CPs) or patient-specific implants (PSIs) to treat different types of orbital fractures, and to evaluate their clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A total of 92 orbital-reconstruction patients were included. Forty-seven patients, treated with PSIs, formed the main group. The remainder, treated with CPs, were the control group. All patients were examined pre- and postoperatively using computerized tomography (CT) and evaluated for enophthalmos and diplopia. Evaluation of differences in orbital shape between damaged and intact orbits after surgery was performed by commercial orbital analysis software.
RESULTS: In the main group, mean orbital shape difference between damaged and intact orbits after surgery was 0.137 ± 0.8 cm3 (range -1.7-2.3 cm3). In the control group, the mean shape difference was 1.05 ± 1.9 cm3 (range -1.8-8.3 cm3), significantly higher (p = 0.007). Diplopia occurred in seven PSI patients three months after surgery (14.9%) and in thirteen CP patients (28.9%) (p = 0.181). Enophthalmos occurred in five PSI patients (10.6%) and in sixteen CP patients (35.6%) (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Precise orbital reconstruction prevents the development of enophthalmos after trauma in patients with orbital wall fractures. In patients with preserved infraorbital buttresses and posterior orbital ledges, there were no significant clinical differences between PSIs and CPs. For cases requiring cantilevered reconstruction, including those with zigomatic or maxillary fragment repositioning, preference should be given to the PSI procedure for both effectiveness and predictability.
© 2020 Craniofacial Research Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Correction of enophthalmos; Diplopia; Orbital reconstruction; Patient specific implants

Year:  2020        PMID: 33088705      PMCID: PMC7567054          DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res        ISSN: 2212-4268


  15 in total

1.  Reconstruction of orbital wall defects: critical review of 72 patients.

Authors:  C Jaquiéry; C Aeppli; P Cornelius; A Palmowsky; C Kunz; B Hammer
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-01-22       Impact factor: 2.789

2.  Novel use of an aerospace selective laser sintering machine for rapid prototyping of an orbital blowout fracture.

Authors:  J V Williams; P J Revington
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Influence of Mirrored Computed Tomograms on Decision-Making for Revising Surgically Treated Orbital Floor Fractures.

Authors:  Michael Blumer; Thomas Gander; Astrid Kruse Gujer; Burkhardt Seifert; Martin Rücker; Heinz-Theo Lübbers
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  The orbit first! A novel surgical treatment protocol for secondary orbitozygomatic reconstruction.

Authors:  Ruud Schreurs; Leander Dubois; Alfred G Becking; Thomas J J Maal
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Evaluation of the application of computer-aided shape-adapted fabricated titanium mesh for mirroring-reconstructing orbital walls in cases of late post-traumatic enophthalmos.

Authors:  Yi Zhang; Yang He; Zhi Yong Zhang; Jin Gang An
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 6.  Controversies in orbital reconstruction--I. Defect-driven orbital reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  L Dubois; S A Steenen; P J J Gooris; M P Mourits; A G Becking
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 2.789

Review 7.  Controversies in orbital reconstruction-III. Biomaterials for orbital reconstruction: a review with clinical recommendations.

Authors:  L Dubois; S A Steenen; P J J Gooris; R R M Bos; A G Becking
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 2.789

8.  A prospective multicenter study to compare the precision of posttraumatic internal orbital reconstruction with standard preformed and individualized orbital implants.

Authors:  Rüdiger M Zimmerer; Edward Ellis; Gregorio Sanchez Aniceto; Alexander Schramm; Maximilian E H Wagner; Michael P Grant; Carl-Peter Cornelius; Edward Bradley Strong; Majeed Rana; Lim Thiam Chye; Alvaro Rivero Calle; Frank Wilde; Daniel Perez; Frank Tavassol; Gido Bittermann; Nicholas R Mahoney; Marta Redondo Alamillos; Joanna Bašić; Jan Dittmann; Michael Rasse; Nils-Claudius Gellrich
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.078

9.  Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol.

Authors:  M Kärkkäinen; T Wilkman; K Mesimäki; J Snäll
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 1.651

10.  Precision of posttraumatic primary orbital reconstruction using individually bent titanium mesh with and without navigation: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Harald Essig; Lars Dressel; Majeed Rana; Madiha Rana; Horst Kokemueller; Martin Ruecker; Nils-Claudius Gellrich
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 2.151

View more
  1 in total

1.  Application of Patient-Specific Implants as Alternative Approach to Zygoma Defect Management - A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Yurii Chepurnyi; Tatiana Kustro; Denis Chernogorskyi; Olena Zhukovtseva; Oleksandr Kanura; Andrii Kopchak
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2021-07-24
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.