Verification of clinical precision after computer-aided reconstruction in craniomaxillofacial surgery

Metzger, Marc Christian; Hohlweg-Majert, Bettina; Schön, Ralf; Teschner, Matthias; Gellrich, Nils‐Claudius; Schmelzeisen, Rainer; Gutwald, Ralf

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.04.015

Cited by 117 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It must also be possible to continually update changes in the patient's position ('reregistration'), because movements during the operation cannot be prevented and are even necessary for some manoeuvres. This is accomplished with an LED array that is securely attached to the patient (7,15,20,21). Therefore, registration is the first step in intraoperative navigation.…”

Section: Intraoperative Navigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Navigation-assisted primary reconstructions of the orbit offer important advantages but few cases have been described in the literature, as a result of the complicated preoperative preparations that are required (4,7,(35)(36)(37). To date, invasive registration methods have been the only way to perform computer-assisted procedures with acceptable accuracy.…”

Section: Primary Orbital and Mid-facial Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second step is the navigational surgery. The third step consists of post-therapeutic control (6,7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Computer‐assisted therapy in orbital and mid‐facial reconstructions

Schramm¹,

Suárez‐Cunqueiro

Rücker

et al. 2009

Robotics Computer Surgery

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Management of orbital and mid-facial fractures requires a thorough ophthalmic evaluation and precise imaging. A principle goal of therapy is to anatomically reduce fracture segments and to restore a normal orbital volume as soon as possible. Diagnostic advances such as new surgical and imaging techniques have dramatically improved both the functional and aesthetic outcome of reconstructions.

show abstract

Section: Intraoperative Navigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primary Orbital and Mid-facial Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computer‐assisted therapy in orbital and mid‐facial reconstructions

Schramm¹,

Suárez‐Cunqueiro

Rücker

et al. 2009

Robotics Computer Surgery

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These represent typical virtual planning benefits, with some authors going further by validating the accuracy of surgical results against intent (Metzger et al, 2007). The high degree of complexity (from evaluating scan data, integrating multiple components, and choosing from continuous repositioning alternatives) suits the CAD-driven approach well.…”

Section: Virtual Surgical Planning and Guidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additively manufactured maxillofacial implants and guides – achieving routine use

Peel

Eggbeer

2016

Rapid Prototyping Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract:Purpose: The technical efficacy of, and clinical benefits from using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Additive Manufacturing (AM) in the production of patient-specific devices (implants and guides) has been established. Despite this, they are still not in routine clinical use. With AM equipment and CAD tool costs largely outside of the clinician's or designer's control, the opportunity exists to explore design process improvement routes to facilitate routine health service implementation. This paper identifies the key design process factors acting as drivers or barriers to this aim.Methodology / approach: A literature review, new data from three separate clinical case studies, and experience from an institute working on collaborative research and commercial application of CAD/AM in the maxillofacial specialty were analysed to extract a list and formulate models of design process factors.Findings: A semi-digital design and fabrication process is currently the lowest cost and shortest duration for cranioplasty implant production. The key design process factor to address is the fidelity of the device design specification. Implications / limitations:Further research into the relative value of, and best methods to address the key factor is required; in order to work towards the development of new design tools. A wider range of benchmarked case studies is required to better generalise findings beyond one implant type.Originality / value: Design process factors are identified (building on previous work largely restricted to technical and clinical efficacy). Additionally, three implant design and fabrication workflows are directly compared for costs and time. Unusually, a design process failure is detailed. A new model is proposed -describing design process factor relationships and the desired impact of future design tools.

show abstract

“…Other useful applications of comparing different 3D photographs are the evaluation of pathological lesions or swelling such as abscess or tumors over time, cross-sectional growth changes, and the establishment of databases for normative populations. For clinical use, the registration process of pre-and post-treatment 3D photographs has to be very accurate (Metzger et al, 2007;Maal et al, 2010).…”

Section: D Facial Photographsmentioning

confidence: 99%