Evaluation of virtual surgical planning systems and customized devices in fibula free flap mandibular reconstruction

A Comparative Study of Analog Preoperative Planning Versus Virtual Preoperative Planning for Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Free Flap

“…Since then, new techniques have been developed for the preoperative planning of composite flaps in maxillomandibular reconstruction. [1][2][3] The most commonly used donor sites for autologous flaps are usually the iliac crest, scapula, and fibula. The latter is considered the gold standard treatment due to its versatility, quality, and quantity of bone that allow its subsequent rehabilitation with dental implants, improving the function, aesthetics, and quality of life of patients.…”

“…Proper preoperative planning is of utter importance to attaining predictable and reliable results in reconstructive surgery. 3,9 Conventional analog planning approaches have been used for a long time with good results only when performed by experienced surgeons. In addition, its help is undeniable when other more sophisticated methods are not available, allowing simple planning in a short time with negligible costs.…”

“…In addition, the combination of orthodontics and MCH treatment can provide the appropriate treatment timing, excellent aesthetic, and functional results for MCH patients.1 Wolford et al suggests high condylectomy combined with orthognathic surgery has better outcomes and long-term stability than orthognathic surgery alone, in the patients with facial asymmetry caused by unilateral MCH.2 They proved that high condylectomy effectively arrests the disproportionate mandibular growth, whereas maintaining normal jaw function. 3 The preauricular approach is a conventional approach for high condylectomy. However, this approach has a potential risk of facial nerve injury and inevitable facial scarring.…”

The Role of 3D Printing in Planning Complex Medical Procedures and Training of Medical Professionals—Cross-Sectional Multispecialty Review

“…In a series comparing 11 CFMR and 18 CAMR cases, Culie et al demonstrated a reduction in ischemic time by half in favor of CAMR (75 min vs. 150 min, p <0.001), with greater time savings with the increased complexity of the reconstruction [ 92 ]. More recently, Blanc et al compared operative and ischemic times between 14 CAMR and 16 CFMR patients, with the former yielding a gain of 88 min ( p < 0.001) and 36 min ( p = 0.04), respectively [ 93 ]. Finally, a meta-analysis comparing CFMR with CAMR concluded that 3D planning conferred a significantly shortened ischemic time by 35 min (−34.81, 95% CI, −40.07 to −29.55, p < 0.01), as well as improved reconstructive and total operative times [ 94 ].…”

“…In addition to operative and ischemic time gains attributable to CAD/CAM, CAMR has enabled more complex surgeries [ 95 ] with a high degree of accuracy in mandibular reconstruction compared to preoperative virtual models [ 93 , 96 ], with a mean error as low as 1 mm (range 0.4–2.46 mm) reported by Tarsitano et al [ 97 ]. A systematic review of subjective cosmetic (e.g., facial appearance, aesthetic/social activity satisfaction) and functional (e.g., regular diet, intelligible speech) outcomes by Powecharoen et al likewise favors CAMR over CFMR [ 94 ].…”