2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supporting mandibular resection with intraoperative navigation utilizing augmented reality technology – A proof of concept study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
44
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, a per-operative visual inspection after guided placement confirmed that no gap remained between the flange and the mandibular bone at the osteotomy sites. Second, postoperative analysis of CBCT scans showed a high accuracy of placement, with 3D deviations comparable to our prior studies and of others, using surgical guides (Kraeima, Dorgelo, et al, 2018;Kraeima, Merema, et al, 2018;Pietruski et al, 2019;Schepers et al, 2016;van Baar, Forouzanfar, Liberton, Winters, & Leusink, 2018;Vosselman et al, 2018). Additionally, careful inspection of the postoperative CBCT scans confirmed contact between the osteotomy sites and bookshelf-like flanges of the RPs as well as the remainder bone-plate interface, which indicates proper positioning with a small potential shift in the osteotomy plane.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…First, a per-operative visual inspection after guided placement confirmed that no gap remained between the flange and the mandibular bone at the osteotomy sites. Second, postoperative analysis of CBCT scans showed a high accuracy of placement, with 3D deviations comparable to our prior studies and of others, using surgical guides (Kraeima, Dorgelo, et al, 2018;Kraeima, Merema, et al, 2018;Pietruski et al, 2019;Schepers et al, 2016;van Baar, Forouzanfar, Liberton, Winters, & Leusink, 2018;Vosselman et al, 2018). Additionally, careful inspection of the postoperative CBCT scans confirmed contact between the osteotomy sites and bookshelf-like flanges of the RPs as well as the remainder bone-plate interface, which indicates proper positioning with a small potential shift in the osteotomy plane.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Pietruski et al developed an AR navigation system used to perform osteotomies on a phantom mandible using a virtually projected saw. 27 Their 'simple AR' method is comparable to the method in this study; namely, based on the navigation data rather than exact alignment and visual guidance of the AR content. Although their accuracy includes the registration error of the navigation system, using 2 control points they obtained an mean accuracy of 1.77 mm ( §0.82mm) and 1.88 mm ( §1.05mm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Recent approaches accurately projected and executed single osteotomies in the midface, but only focused on 2D pixel errors between executed and planned osteotomies. 30 Several authors 17,18,20,25,26 have navigated the saw against the osteotomy target while simultaneously implementing real-time feedback. This technique improved osteotomy plane angulation to the disadvantage of invasive marker fixation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 Challenging limitations, such as invasive marker fixation or complex technical issues concerning line-of-sight difficulties and image-shifting, prevent the broad clinical implementation of ARguided navigation. [13][14][15] In the field of cranio-maxillofacial surgery, studies have implemented AR for frontal sinus approaches, 16 free fibula flap harvesting 17,18 and osteotomies of the mandible 19,20 and the midface. 21 However, using AR to guide the harvesting of iliac crest grafts has not been investigated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%