Nikolas K G De Meurechy1, Christopher Decoste1, Maurice Y Mommaerts2. 1. European Face Centre, University Hospital Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium. 2. European Face Centre, University Hospital Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium. mauricemommaerts@me.com.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Segment and osteosynthesis malposition resulting in patients' complaints (mainly about asymmetries) are encountered in orthofacial/orthognathic surgery. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND SETTING: We planned to investigate the usefulness of intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging concerning positioning and fixation of bone segments and osteosynthesis in orthognathic/orthofacial surgery. We performed a prospective study of non-consecutive cases. All patients receiving a bimaxillary osteotomy, genioplasty, and their combinations were included in the study from May 2016 to May 2020. Unilateral and bilateral sagittal split osteotomies were excluded. There were no gender and age limitations. All were intraoperatively examined using the BV Pulsera 3D-RX System (Philips Medical, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The outcome variables were the percentage of revisions of segment positioning and osteosynthesis. Predictor variables were age, gender, type of surgery, timing (pre- and post-imaging), and surgeon experience (senior vs assistant). RESULTS: Forty female and twenty-two male patients were included (mean age 25.25 years ± 7.52 and 29.1 years ± 12.6 respectively). We evaluated 27 genioplasties and 34 Le Fort "type-I" osteotomies. Indications for segment repositioning and redo-osteosynthesis increased after intraoperative imaging as compared to operator's clinical judgment before intraoperative imaging (95% confidence interval; p < .001 and p = .002 respectively). CONCLUSION: Suboptimal positioning and fixation of bone segments or osteosynthesis were more apparent with 3D imaging. In addition, some satisfactory cases were also revised for an optimal outcome. As a result, surgeons were prompted to more revisions than judged necessary without intraoperative imaging.
CONTEXT: Segment and osteosynthesis malposition resulting in patients' complaints (mainly about asymmetries) are encountered in orthofacial/orthognathic surgery. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND SETTING: We planned to investigate the usefulness of intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging concerning positioning and fixation of bone segments and osteosynthesis in orthognathic/orthofacial surgery. We performed a prospective study of non-consecutive cases. All patients receiving a bimaxillary osteotomy, genioplasty, and their combinations were included in the study from May 2016 to May 2020. Unilateral and bilateral sagittal split osteotomies were excluded. There were no gender and age limitations. All were intraoperatively examined using the BV Pulsera 3D-RX System (Philips Medical, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The outcome variables were the percentage of revisions of segment positioning and osteosynthesis. Predictor variables were age, gender, type of surgery, timing (pre- and post-imaging), and surgeon experience (senior vs assistant). RESULTS: Forty female and twenty-two male patients were included (mean age 25.25 years ± 7.52 and 29.1 years ± 12.6 respectively). We evaluated 27 genioplasties and 34 Le Fort "type-I" osteotomies. Indications for segment repositioning and redo-osteosynthesis increased after intraoperative imaging as compared to operator's clinical judgment before intraoperative imaging (95% confidence interval; p < .001 and p = .002 respectively). CONCLUSION: Suboptimal positioning and fixation of bone segments or osteosynthesis were more apparent with 3D imaging. In addition, some satisfactory cases were also revised for an optimal outcome. As a result, surgeons were prompted to more revisions than judged necessary without intraoperative imaging.
Authors: Joanneke M Plooij; Thomas J J Maal; Piet Haers; Wilfred A Borstlap; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Stefaan J Bergé Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: G R J Swennen; M Y Mommaerts; J Abeloos; C De Clercq; P Lamoral; N Neyt; J Casselman; F Schutyser Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Daniel Schneider; Peer W Kämmerer; Matthias Hennig; Gerhard Schön; Daniel G E Thiem; Reinhard Bschorer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: M K Wrzosek; Z S Peacock; A Laviv; B R Goldwaser; R Ortiz; C M Resnick; M J Troulis; L B Kaban Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 2.789