Dataset Information

In-House, Open-Source 3D-Software-Based, CAD/CAM-Planned Mandibular Reconstructions in 20 Consecutive Free Fibula Flap Cases: An Explorative Cross-Sectional Study With Three-Dimensional Performance Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mandibular reconstruction is conventionally performed freehand, CAD/CAM-assisted, or by using partially adjustable resection aids. CAD/CAM-assisted reconstructions are usually done in cooperation with osteosynthesis manufacturers, which entails additional costs and longer lead time. The purpose of this study is to analyze an in-house, open-source software-based solution for virtual planning.

Methods and materials

All consecutive cases between January 2019 and April 2021 that underwent in-house, software-based (Blender) mandibular reconstruction with a free fibula flap (FFF) were included in this cross-sectional study. The pre- and postoperative Digital Imaging and Com munications in Medicine (DICOM) data were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) files. In addition to documenting general information (sex, age, indication for surgery, extent of resection, number of segments, duration of surgery, and ischemia time), conventional measurements and three-dimensional analysis methods (root mean square error [RMSE], mean surface distance [MSD], and Hausdorff distance [HD]) were used.

Results

Twenty consecutive cases were enrolled. Three-dimensional analysis of preoperative and virtually planned neomandibula models was associated with a median RMSE of 1.4 (0.4-7.2), MSD of 0.3 (-0.1-2.9), and HD of 0.7 (0.1-3.1). Three-dimensional comparison of preoperative and postoperative models showed a median RMSE of 2.2 (1.5-11.1), MSD of 0.5 (-0.6-6.1), and HD of 1.5 (1.1-6.5) and the differences were significantly different for RMSE (p < 0.001) and HD (p < 0.001). The difference was not significantly different for MSD (p = 0.554). Three-dimensional analysis of virtual and postoperative models had a median RMSE of 2.3 (1.3-10.7), MSD of -0.1 (-1.0-5.6), and HD of 1.7 (0.1-5.9).

Conclusions

Open-source software-based in-house planning is a feasible, inexpensive, and fast method that enables accurate reconstructions. Additionally, it is excellent for teaching purposes.

SUBMITTER: Ritschl LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8498593 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFree osteocutaneous fibula flap (FFF) is currently considered the best option for segmental mandibular reconstruction; however, there are only a few reports comparing secondary with primary reconstructions using FFF. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of secondary mandibular reconstruction using FFF when compared with primary mandibular reconstruction.MethodsFrom October 2018 to February 2020, patients who underwent mandibular reconstruction using FFF after segmental mandibulectomy were retrospectively reviewed. The size and location of the mandibular defect, the segment length and number of osteotomies in the fibula, types of the mandibular plating system, kinds and laterality of the recipient vessels were recorded from the surgical notes. Flap survival, duration of nasogastric tube use, and implant installation after reconstruction were recorded as postoperative evaluation indices.ResultsTwelve patients underwent mandibular reconstruction using FFF during the study period. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics other than body mass index between the primary (n = 8) and secondary (n = 4) reconstruction groups. No significant differences were observed in the size and location of defects, the segment length and number of osteotomies in the fibula, and the types of mandibular plating system. There was no significant difference in the kinds of recipient vessels; however, the laterality of recipient vessels was ipsilateral in all cases of primary reconstructions and contralateral in all cases of secondary reconstructions. Three out of eight patients with primary FFF reconstruction developed partial flap necrosis. Four patients in the secondary FFF reconstruction group achieved complete flap survival. The duration of use of the nasogastric tube and implant installation after reconstruction was comparable between the two groups.ConclusionSafe and effective secondary mandibular reconstruction can be performed in this clinical case study using FFF.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Functional and cosmetic defects in maxillofacial region are caused by various ailments like trauma, neoplasm, developmental, infections and iatrogenic causes. Reconstruction of these defects with free flaps remains the gold standard but demerits like need for surgical expertise and equipment, prolonged duration of surgery, compliance of the patient and increased cost are associated with microvascular reconstruction. Hence reconstruction with nonvascular bone grafts can be considered when defect is nonirradiated and <9 cm and with sufficient soft tissue cover available. PURPOSE:To retrospectively evaluate clinical, radiological outcome and complications encountered with mandibular reconstruction using non vascular fibula graft. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This retrospective study included 7 patients who were treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, AP between 2011 and 2013 with histologically proven benign osteolytic lesions of mandible that require a segmental mandibulectomy and primary reconstruction using autogenous non-vascularised fibular graft. The clinical case records of the patients and personal patient assessment forms (Quality of Life Assessment Forms) were analysed. They were recalled every 3rd, 6th and 9th month after surgery for evaluation of clinical, radiological outcome of the graft and complications occurring at recipient and donor sites. RESULTS:In all the 7 patients, the lower border continuity was maintained except in one where the graft was dislodged. Tongue movements in all the patients were unrestricted. Jaw movements were affected in cases of ramus defects with slight deviation to operated side and reduced mouth opening. Radiological observations revealed no significant changes in 3 months except for slight reduction in graft height. The radioopaque bridging with continuity of lower border of mandible was noticed in 6th month indicating the take of the graft. This was achieved in every case except in one where the graft was lost due to dislodged reconstruction plate. In 9th month the edges of the graft i.e., graft to native mandible junction showed more resorption (3 mm) especially where there is >2 mm of gap. Whereas increase in height of graft in other areas especially in graft to graft junction was seen. Significant graft resorption was seen in two cases. There were no major complications associated with the donor site. CONCLUSION:Avascular fibula graft although a second choice to vascularised fibula, is a favourable option for mandible defects of 6-10 cm under optimum conditions especially in developing countries where financial and/or surgical resources are limited. An attempt for primary reconstruction with this is never futile as it prevents aesthetic deformity even in the event of failure and thus makes secondary reconstruction easy. However in order to confirm the results a prospective study with large scale of patients is necessary.