Harbison R Alex, Shan Xiao-Feng, Douglas Zachary, Bevans Scott, Li Yangming, Moe Kris S, Futran Neal, Houlton Jeffrey J
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Mar 1;143(3):226-233. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3204.
Segmental mandibulectomy for tumors that distort the buccal surface of the mandible present a reconstructive challenge.
To determine whether mandible alignment after navigation-guided mandible reconstruction is better than alignment after non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction and as good as template-assisted reconstruction in a cadaveric trial.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cadaveric trial using 10 specimens was conducted at a tertiary academic center. Fiducials were created on the ramus to compare alignment with each intervention. Segmental mandibulectomy was performed on each cadaver. Each cadaver underwent navigation-guided reconstruction, template-assisted reconstruction using a manually shaped plate, and non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction with plate contouring performed after mandibulectomy. The study was conducted from October 1, 2015, to January 1, 2016; data analysis was performed from February 1, 2016, to March 1, 2016.
Segmental mandibulectomy, navigation-guided reconstruction, template-assisted reconstruction using a manually shaped plate, and non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction.
Ramus fiducial coordinates were recorded at baseline and after each intervention. Mandible dimensions were measured using cephalometric landmarks. Postintervention and baseline differences in ramus and mandible position were calculated.
Ramus alignment was not significantly different between navigation-guided and template-assisted reconstruction, differing by 0.54 mm (98.3% CI, -0.38 to 1.47 mm). Non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction was associated with a 3.14-mm difference in alignment compared with template-assisted reconstruction (98.3% CI, 1.09 to 5.19 mm). Navigation-guided alignment resulted in a 3.69-mm improvement in alignment compared with non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction (98.3% CI, 1.79 to 5.58 mm). There was some improvement in the gonion-gonion and lingula mandibulae-lingula mandibulae (Lm-Lm) alignment for navigation-assisted compared with non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction by 1.97 mm (98.3% CI, -0.65 to 4.58 mm) and 1.39 mm (98.3% CI, -0.17 to 2.95 mm), respectively. There was marginal evidence of better Lm-Lm alignment for navigation-guided than template-assisted reconstruction (0.44 mm; 98.3% CI, -0.06 to 0.95 mm).
Mandible alignment following navigation-guided reconstruction is similar to template-assisted reconstruction. Navigation-guided alignment is likely better than non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction, and navigation guidance offers a reliable technique for real-time adjustment when reconstructing complex surgical defects, such as tumors effacing the buccal cortex of the mandible.
对于使下颌骨颊面变形的肿瘤进行节段性下颌骨切除术会带来重建挑战。
在一项尸体试验中确定导航引导下的下颌骨重建后的下颌骨对线是否优于非模板辅助徒手重建后的对线,且与模板辅助重建一样好。
设计、地点和参与者:在一家三级学术中心进行了一项使用10个标本的尸体试验。在升支上创建基准点以比较每种干预后的对线情况。对每个尸体进行节段性下颌骨切除术。每个尸体分别接受导航引导下的重建、使用手工塑形板的模板辅助重建以及下颌骨切除术后进行钢板塑形的非模板辅助徒手重建。该研究于2015年10月1日至2016年1月1日进行;数据分析于2016年2月1日至2016年3月1日进行。
节段性下颌骨切除术、导航引导下的重建、使用手工塑形板的模板辅助重建以及非模板辅助徒手重建。
在基线以及每次干预后记录升支基准点坐标。使用头影测量标志点测量下颌骨尺寸。计算干预后与基线时升支和下颌骨位置的差异。
导航引导下的重建与模板辅助重建之间的升支对线无显著差异,相差0.54毫米(98.3%可信区间,-0.38至1.47毫米)。与模板辅助重建相比,非模板辅助徒手重建的对线差异为3.14毫米(98.3%可信区间,1.09至5.19毫米)。与非模板辅助徒手重建相比,导航引导下的对线改善了3.69毫米(98.3%可信区间,1.79至5.58毫米)。与非模板辅助徒手重建相比,导航辅助下的下颌角-下颌角和下颌小舌-下颌小舌(Lm-Lm)对线分别改善了1.97毫米(98.3%可信区间,-0.65至4.58毫米)和1.39毫米(98.3%可信区间,-0.17至2.95毫米)。有边际证据表明导航引导下的Lm-Lm对线优于模板辅助重建(0.44毫米;98.3%可信区间,-0.06至0.95毫米)。
导航引导下重建后的下颌骨对线与模板辅助重建相似。导航引导下的对线可能优于非模板辅助徒手重建,并且导航引导为重建复杂手术缺损(如下颌骨颊皮质被肿瘤侵蚀)时的实时调整提供了一种可靠技术。