Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Department of Orthopedics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024 Apr;52(4):491-502. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2024.02.002. Epub 2024 Feb 5.
To compare the reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific implants (PSI) and conventional pre-formed titanium mesh; to develop a method of three-dimensional (3D) superimposition and analysis of the reconstructed orbits; and to present the pitfalls in 3D planning of orbital PSI and how to avoid them. This was a retrospective study of patients with orbital fractures who were treated in our institution between the years 2022 and 2023 using PSI or conservative prefabricated titanium mesh. Three different methods for virtual reconstruction of orbital fractures were used and are detailed with advantages, disadvantages and indications. Data acquired included age, gender, method of reconstruction, functional outcomes and aesthetic outcomes. 3D analysis for accuracy of reconstruction was performed. A total of 23 patients were included; 12 were treated using PSI and 11 using prefabricated titanium meshes. There were 8 male and 4 female patients in the PSI group comparted to 5 and 6 in the prefabricated group. All three virtual methods for reconstruction were used successfully, each with the proper indications. When comparing PSI reconstruction to conventional mesh, a significant difference in accuracy was observed; PSI cases showed an inaccuracy of 0.58 mm compared to 1.54 mm with the conventional method. Complications are presented, and tips for avoiding them are detailed. Three different methods for virtual reconstruction were used successfully; automated computerized reconstruction is used for small defects, repositioning is the superior method for non-comminuted cases while mirroring is the method of choice in comminuted fractures. 3D analysis can be performed using a novel method detailed in this report. PSI reconstruction showed superior results, indicating it should be the method of choice when possible. Pitfalls are presented and approaches to prevent them are discussed. Orbital reconstruction is a very important entity in maxillofacial surgery with crucial functional and esthetical implications, and one should use virtual planning and PSI implants, as they significantly improve outcomes.
比较使用患者特异性植入物(PSI)和传统预制钛网修复眼眶骨折的效果;开发一种三维(3D)叠加和分析重建眼眶的方法;并介绍 PSI 眼眶 3D 规划中的陷阱以及如何避免这些陷阱。这是一项回顾性研究,纳入了 2022 年至 2023 年期间在我院接受 PSI 或保守预制钛网治疗的眼眶骨折患者。使用了三种不同的眼眶骨折虚拟重建方法,并详细介绍了它们的优缺点和适应证。收集的数据包括年龄、性别、重建方法、功能结果和美学结果。对重建的准确性进行了 3D 分析。共纳入 23 例患者;12 例患者使用 PSI 治疗,11 例患者使用预制钛网治疗。PSI 组中 8 例为男性,4 例为女性,预制组中 5 例为男性,6 例为女性。所有三种虚拟重建方法均成功应用,每种方法均有其适应证。与传统网片相比,PSI 重建的准确性差异有统计学意义;PSI 组的误差为 0.58mm,而传统方法的误差为 1.54mm。报告了并发症,并详细介绍了避免这些并发症的技巧。成功应用了三种不同的虚拟重建方法;对于小的缺损,采用自动化计算机重建;对于非粉碎性骨折,重新定位是较好的方法;对于粉碎性骨折,镜像法是首选方法。可以使用本报告中详细介绍的新方法进行 3D 分析。PSI 重建的效果较好,表明在可能的情况下,PSI 重建应是首选方法。报告了一些陷阱,并讨论了预防这些陷阱的方法。眼眶重建是颌面外科中一个非常重要的实体,具有重要的功能和美学意义,应采用虚拟规划和 PSI 植入物,因为它们显著改善了结果。