Adherence to Computer-Assisted Surgical Planning in 136 Maxillofacial Reconstructions.

3D printing computer-assisted surgery (CAS) head and neck oral and maxillofacial reconstruction patient-specific model treatment adherence and compliance virtual surgical planning (VSP)

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 23 05 2021
accepted: 06 07 2021
entrez: 2 8 2021
pubmed: 3 8 2021
medline: 3 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To investigate the adherence to initially planned maxillofacial reconstructions using computer-assisted surgery (CAS) and to identify the influential factors affecting its compliance for maxillofacial reconstruction. A retrospective analysis of 136 computer-assisted maxillofacial reconstructive surgeries was conducted from January 2014 to June 2020. The categorical parameters involved age, gender, disease etiology, disease site, defect size, bone flap segments, and flap type. Apart from descriptive data reporting, categorical data were related by applying the Fisher-exact test, and a p-value below 5% was considered statistically significant (P < 0.05). The main reasons for partial or non-adherence included unfitness, patient health condition, and other subjective reasons. Out of the total patient population, 118 patients who underwent mandibular reconstruction showed higher CAS compliance (83.9%) compared to the 18 midface reconstruction (72.2%) without any statistically significant difference (p = 0.361). Based on the size of the defect, a significantly higher CAS compliance (p = 0.031) was observed with a minor defect (80.6%) compared to the large-sized ones (74.1%). The bone flaps with two or more segments were significantly (p = 0.003) prone to observe a partial (15.4%) or complete (12.8%) discard of the planned CAS compared to the bone flaps with less than two segments. The malignant tumors showed the lowest CAS compliance when compared to other disorders without any significant difference (p = 0.1). The maxillofacial reconstructive surgical procedures offered optimal compliance to the initially planned CAS. However, large-sized defects and multiple bone flap segments demonstrated a higher risk of partial or complete abandonment of the CAS.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34336702
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.713606
pmc: PMC8322949
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

713606

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Ma, Shujaat, Van Dessel, Sun, Bila, Vranckx, Politis and Jacobs.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jun 16;13(12):
pubmed: 34208555
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Feb;141(2):271e-285e
pubmed: 29068896
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 16;10(6):
pubmed: 33809600
Oral Oncol. 2016 Aug;59:e6-e9
pubmed: 27344375
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Apr;143(4):1185-1194
pubmed: 30676506
Cancer. 2017 Jul 15;123(14):2651-2660
pubmed: 28241092
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):e23-30
pubmed: 26758757
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Oct;11(10):1001-8
pubmed: 20932492
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):121-133
pubmed: 28000275
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Nov;78(11):2080-2089
pubmed: 32640210
Med Image Anal. 2007 Jun;11(3):282-301
pubmed: 17493864
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;45(8):1246-1250
pubmed: 28606440
Head Neck. 2009 Jan;31(1):45-51
pubmed: 18972428
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Jul;46(7):1121-1125
pubmed: 29802055
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2017 Feb;29(1):89-104
pubmed: 27890230
Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Sep;28(2):129-144
pubmed: 32741510
Int Orthop. 2017 Sep;41(9):1875-1880
pubmed: 28396929
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Apr 22;:
pubmed: 34020903
Oral Oncol. 2018 Sep;84:52-60
pubmed: 30115476
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Jan 17;6(1):e1443
pubmed: 29464146
Oral Oncol. 2020 Jan;100:104491
pubmed: 31794886
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jan;46(1):24-31
pubmed: 27815013
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Aug;69(8):1024-36
pubmed: 27292287
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Apr;19(3):647-56
pubmed: 25100637
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;28(1):363-375
pubmed: 32572853

Auteurs

Hongyang Ma (H)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Sohaib Shujaat (S)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Jeroen Van Dessel (J)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Yi Sun (Y)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Michel Bila (M)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Jan Vranckx (J)

Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Constantinus Politis (C)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Reinhilde Jacobs (R)

OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Classifications MeSH