| Literature DB >> 34900674 |
Henriette L Möllmann1, Laura Apeltrath1, Nadia Karnatz1, Max Wilkat1, Erik Riedel1, Daman Deep Singh1, Majeed Rana1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study compared two mandibular reconstruction procedures-conventional reconstruction plates (CR) and patient-specific implants (PSI)-and evaluated their accuracy of reconstruction and clinical outcome.Entities:
Keywords: CAS; PSI; mandibular reconstruction; reconstruction plate; virtual planning
Year: 2021 PMID: 34900674 PMCID: PMC8660676 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.719028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Representation of the measurement distances. D1, lateralmost point of condyle mandibulae right to the lateralmost point of condyle mandibulae left; D2, medialmost point of condyle mandibulae right to the medialmost point of condyle mandibulae left; D3, most caudal point of the incisura mandibulae on the right to the most caudal point of the incisura mandibulae on the left; D4, foramen mandibulae on the right to the foramen mandibulae on the left, D5, processus coronoideus on the right to processus coronoideus on the left; D6, gonion on the right to gonion on the left.
Descriptive statistics [conventional reconstruction plates (CR) vs. patient-specific implants (PSI)].
| CR | PSI | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | |||
| | 48 | 46 | 94 |
| Age | |||
| Years (mean ± SD) | 66.5 ± 13.6 | 66.2 ± 11.3 | 66.3 ± 12.5 |
| >60 years | 64.6% | 67.7% | 65.9% |
| <60 years | 35.4% | 32.3% | 34.1% |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 26 (54.2%) | 28 (60.8%) | 54 (57.4%) |
| Female | 22 (45.8%) | 18 (39.1%) | 40 (42.6%) |
| Diagnosis | |||
| SCC | 25 | 20 | 45 (47.8%) |
| Maxillary necrosis | 10 | 8 | 18 (16.1%) |
| Pathological fracture | 10 | 6 | 16 (17.0%) |
| Fracture | 0 | 2 | 2 (2.0%) |
| Osteomyelitis | 0 | 3 | 3 (3.1%) |
| Basal cell carcinoma | 0 | 1 | 1 (1.06%) |
| Secondary reconstruction | 2 | 6 | 8 (8.0%) |
| Complications | |||
| Mean ± SD | 1.5 ± 1.7 | 2 ± 1.9 | 1.78 ± 1.8 |
| | 31 (48.0%) | 33 (51.0%) | 64 (68.1%) |
| Defect size (mm) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 58.8 ± 28.1 | 64.7 ± 29.2 | 61.7 ± 28.7 |
| Maximum | 120 | 120 | 120 |
| Minimum | 8 | 12 | 8 |
| Operative time (min) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 397 ± 229 | 467 ± 240 | 431 ± 236 |
| Maximum | 1000 | 878 | 1000 |
| Minimum | 143 | 73 | 73 |
| Hospital stay (days) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 26.4 ± 22.4 | 34.6 ± 32.4 | |
| Maximum | 97 | 125 | |
| Minimum | 4 | 6 | |
| No reconstruction | |||
| Mean ± SD | 10.7 ± 8.4 | 27.1 ± 43.4 | 16.4 ± 26.5 |
| Local reconstruction | |||
| Mean ± SD | 16.3 ± 8.8 | 27.1 | 15 ± 8.8 |
| Microvascular reconstruction | |||
| Mean ± SD | 35.4 ± 24 | 36.7 ± 30.6 | 36.1 ± 27.8 |
| Reconstruction group | |||
| No reconstruction | 20 (21.3%) | ||
| | 0.9 ± 1.39 | ||
| Local reconstruction | 7 (7.4%) | ||
| | 1.29 ± 1.8 | ||
| Microvascular reconstruction | 67 (71.3%) | ||
| | 2.07 ± 1.81 | ||
| Tumor patients | |||
| | 25 (26.3%) | 18 (19.1%) | 43 (45.7%) |
| | 2.2 ± 1.8 | 2.56 ± 2.04 | Tumor: 2.35 ± 1.9 |
| No tumor: 1.3 ± 1.5 |
Figure 2Defect sizes in both groups (conventional reconstruction plates vs. patient-specific implants).
Figure 3Operation times in both groups (conventional reconstruction plates vs. patient-specific implants).
Figure 4Differences between the measurements (D1–D6) for conventional reconstruction plates and patient-specific implants; D6 [t(56) = -2.217; p = .031 <. 05].