Intraoperative Feedback and Quality Control in Orbital Reconstruction: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Current Trends in Head and Neck Trauma

The practicing otolaryngologist frequently encounters consultation for injuries in the head and neck. Restoration of form and function is essential to normal activities of daily living and quality of life. This discussion intends to provide the reader with an up-to-date discussion of various evidence-based practice trends related to head and neck trauma. The discussion focuses on the acute management of trauma with minor emphasis on secondary management of injuries. Specific injuries related to the craniomaxillofacial skeleton, laryngotracheal complex, vascularity, and soft tissues are explored.

Comparison of Anatomical Preformed Titanium Implants and Patient-Specific CAD/CAM Implants in the Primary Reconstruction of Isolated Orbital Fractures-A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

Reconstruction of the fractured orbit remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare anatomical preformed titanium orbital implants with patient-specific CAD/CAM implants for precision and intraoperative applicability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 75 orbital reconstructions from 2012 to 2022 were retrospectively assessed for their precision of implant position and intra- and postoperative revision rates. For this purpose, the implant position after digital orbital reconstruction was checked for deviations by mirroring the healthy orbit at 5 defined points, and the medical records of the patients were checked for revisions.

RESULTS

The evaluation of the 45 anatomical preformed orbital implant cases showed significantly higher deviations and an implant inaccuracy of 66.6% than the 30 CAD/CAM cases with only 10% inaccuracy. In particular, the CAD/CAM implants were significantly more precise in medial and posterior positioning. In addition, the intraoperative revision rates of 26.6% vs. 11% after 3D intraoperative imaging and the postoperative revision rates of 13% vs. 0 for the anatomical preformed implants were significantly higher than for patient-specific implants.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that patient-specific CAD/CAM orbital implants are highly suitable for primary orbital reconstruction. These seem to be preferable to anatomical preformed implants in terms of precision and revision rates.

Personalized Medicine Workflow in Post-Traumatic Orbital Reconstruction

Restoration of the orbit is the first and most predictable step in the surgical treatment of orbital fractures. Orbital reconstruction is keyhole surgery performed in a confined space. A technology-supported workflow called computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has become the standard for complex orbital traumatology in many hospitals. CAS technology has catalyzed the incorporation of personalized medicine in orbital reconstruction. The complete workflow consists of diagnostics, planning, surgery and evaluation. Advanced diagnostics and virtual surgical planning are techniques utilized in the preoperative phase to optimally prepare for surgery and adapt the treatment to the patient. Further personalization of the treatment is possible if reconstruction is performed with a patient-specific implant and several design options are available to tailor the implant to individual needs. Intraoperatively, visual appraisal is used to assess the obtained implant position. Surgical navigation, intraoperative imaging, and specific PSI design options are able to enhance feedback in the CAS workflow. Evaluation of the surgical result can be performed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Throughout the entire workflow, the concepts of CAS and personalized medicine are intertwined. A combination of the techniques may be applied in order to achieve the most optimal clinical outcome. The goal of this article is to provide a complete overview of the workflow for post-traumatic orbital reconstruction, with an in-depth description of the available personalization and CAS options.

Outcome and Quality of Life after Individual Computer-AssistedReconstruction of the Midface

Often, midfacial defects are not only relevant regarding functional aspects but also esthetics of such congenital or acquired deformities impair significantly the patients' quality of life. Reconstructions of the midface do not only include replacing lost or non-developed tissue but moreover to achieve predictable results with regard to esthetics as well as function for the individual patient. Digital planning modalities including different surface and volume data in combination with modern additive manufacturing techniques for biomodel and implant production and intraoperative support by using real and virtual 3D volume data for navigation and intraoperative imaging, but also securing the outcome based on postoperative analysis have been implemented in modern midface reconstruction and represent new standards for medical care. The objective of this paper is to describe modern options of patient-specific midfacial reconstruction with integration of computer-assisted planning and production techniques.

Pitfalls of Surgeon-Engineer Communication and the Effect of In-House Engineer Training During Digital Planning of Patient-Specific Implants for Orbital Reconstruction

PURPOSE

The use of patient-specific implants for reconstruction of complex orbital floor defects is increasing and requires communication with an industry partner, which warrants investigation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of in-house training of engineers on such communication as well as to identify frequent sources of problems and their solutions for improvement of the implant-planning workflow.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study and enrolled a sample of patients who had undergone orbital reconstruction with patient-specific implants between 2017 and 2020. The predictor variables were in-house training (additional training completed in hospital or not) and implant complexity (complex [multiwalled implants] vs less complex [isolated orbital floor reconstructions]). The outcome variables were duration of communication, message length, and need for synchronous communication or modifications to the original design. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were computed, and statistical significance was set at a P value of < 0.05.

RESULTS

This study included the data of 66 patients (48 men and 18 women, average age: 42.27 years). The complexity of the implant statistically significantly increased the duration of the communication (8.76 vs 16.03 days; P = .004). In 72.73%, the initial design had to be changed. Engineers trained in house required less communication to plan less-complex implants and generally needed fewer corrections to the original design (P = .020 and P = .036, respectively). Problems during planning were observed in 25.76% of the cases, with an insufficient diagnostic 3-dimensional data set being the most common (15.15%).

CONCLUSIONS

In-house training of engineers is time-saving while planning the workflow for patient-specific implants, especially in less-complex cases, given that design changes are not needed often. The high rate of data sets that were insufficient for planning patient-specific implants suggests that diagnostic 3-dimensional data sets should already meet the requirements for such planning.