van Baar Gustaaf J C, Schipper Kitty, Forouzanfar Tymour, Leeuwrik Lars, Winters Henri A H, Ridwan-Pramana Angela, Leusink Frank K J
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 16;10(6):1226. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061226.
Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in maxillary reconstruction has proven its value regarding more predictable postoperative results. However, the accuracy evaluation methods differ between studies, and no meta-analysis has been performed yet. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, using a Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) method: (P) patients in need of maxillary reconstruction using free osteocutaneous tissue transfer, (I) reconstructed according to a virtual plan in CAS software, (C) compared to the actual postoperative result, and (O) postoperatively measured by a quantitative accuracy assessment) search strategy, and was reported according to the PRISMA statement. We reviewed all of the studies that quantitatively assessed the accuracy of maxillary reconstructions using CAS. Twelve studies matched the inclusion criteria, reporting 67 maxillary reconstructions. All of the included studies compared postoperative 3D models to preoperative 3D models (revised to the virtual plan). The postoperative accuracy measurements mainly focused on the position of the fibular bony segments. Only approximate comparisons of postoperative accuracy between studies were feasible because of small differences in the postoperative measurement methods; the accuracy of the bony segment positioning ranged between 0.44 mm and 7.8 mm, and between 2.90° and 6.96°. A postoperative evaluation guideline to create uniformity in evaluation methods needs to be considered so as to allow for valid comparisons of postoperative results and to facilitate meta-analyses in the future. With the proper validation of the postoperative results, future research might explore more definitive evidence regarding the management and superiority of CAS in maxillary and midface reconstruction.
计算机辅助手术(CAS)在上颌骨重建中的应用已证明其在提高术后结果可预测性方面的价值。然而,不同研究之间的准确性评估方法存在差异,且尚未进行荟萃分析。本研究采用患者、干预措施、对照和结局(PICO)方法,在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行了系统评价:(P)需要使用游离骨皮瓣进行上颌骨重建的患者;(I)根据CAS软件中的虚拟计划进行重建;(C)与术后实际结果进行比较;(O)通过定量准确性评估进行术后测量。搜索策略按照PRISMA声明进行报告。我们回顾了所有定量评估使用CAS进行上颌骨重建准确性的研究。12项研究符合纳入标准,共报告了67例上颌骨重建病例。所有纳入研究均将术后三维模型与术前三维模型(根据虚拟计划进行修订)进行比较。术后准确性测量主要集中在腓骨骨段的位置。由于术后测量方法存在细微差异,各研究之间仅能进行大致的术后准确性比较;骨段定位的准确性范围在0.44毫米至7.8毫米之间,角度在2.90°至6.96°之间。需要考虑制定术后评估指南,以使评估方法统一,从而能够对术后结果进行有效比较,并便于未来进行荟萃分析。通过对术后结果进行适当验证,未来的研究可能会探索更多关于CAS在上颌骨和中面部重建中的管理及优势的确切证据。