COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PREOPERATIVE PLANNING AND SURGICAL OUTCOME IN ZYGOMATIC COMPLEX AND ORBITFL DEFECTS MANAGEMENT WITH PATIENT-SPECIFIC IMPLANTS

Chepurny Y. V., Chernohorskiy D. M., Zhukovtseva A. I., Kopchak A. V.

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

Abstract. The use of computer simulation in the planning of surgical operations has changed the protocols for the treatment of defects and deformities of the orbit and zygomatic complex (ZC). At the same time, the effectiveness of this approach in terms of the precision of reproducing the position of patient-specific implants (PSI), determined during preoperative planning, is still uncertain. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to study the correspondence between the position of the PSI achieved during the operation and its position planned during the preoperative computer simulation. Materials and methods. To achieve this goal, a comparative analysis of preoperative planning and postoperative results achieved in the treatment of 115 patients with ZC and / or orbital defects using PSI was carried out. In order to compare the preoperative planning and the obtained position of the PSI, the postoperative CT was segmented and virtual models of the ZC with the installed PSI were obtained. For further comparison, the virtual ZC model obtained from the data of preoperative CT was combined with the virtual model of the PSI. Then, in the Geomagic Freeform software environment, they were superimposed on each other in an automatic mode, where the software complex differentiated the corresponding points of both models, determined the average distance between them in “mm” and formed a color map of discrepancies of the superimposed images, which demonstrated the existing deviations between the models. The maximum deviations between similar points of the models were also measured. Results. The average deviation between the position of the PSI after reconstruction and its planned location was 1.2 ± 0.4 mm. The maximum deviation in the real position of the implants was 6.9 ± 2.1 mm. Evaluation of the accuracy of orbital volume restoration in patients included in the study showed that the mean planned orbital volume was 28.3 ± 2.8 cm3, while after reconstruction it was 28.6 ± 3.1 cm3 (p = 0.334). The average difference between the planned volume of the reconstructed orbit and the actually reproduced one was 0.6 ± 0.2 cm3. Conclusions. This study has confirmed the high reproducibility of virtual simulation and computer modeling in the treatment of ZC defects using CAD / CAM technology. The main reasons for deviations in the position of the implants were inaccurate virtual restoration of the integrity of the anatomical structures, the discrepancy between the design of the PSI and the surgical intervention plan, as well as errors in the surgical technique during the placement of implants and their fixation.

orbital reconstruction, zygomatic complex, patient-specific implants.

1. Parthasarathy J. 3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014;4:9-18.
2. Visscher DO, Farré-Guasch E, Helder MN, Gibbs S, Forouzanfar T, van Zuijlen PP, et al. Advances in bioprinting technologies for craniofacial reconstruction. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34:700-10.
3. Mommaerts MY, Nicolescu I, Dorobantu M, De Meurechy N. Extended total temporomandibular joint replacement with occlusal adjustments: Pitfalls, patient‑reported outcomes, subclassification, and a New Paradigm. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020;10:73-9.
4. Wilde F, Hanken H, Probst F, Schramm A, Heiland M, Cornelius CP. Multicenter study on the use of patient‑specific CAD/CAM reconstruction plates for mandibular reconstruction. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015;10:2035-51.
5. Day KM, Phillips PM, Sargent LA. Correction of a Posttraumatic Orbital Deformity Using Three-Dimensional Modeling, Virtual Surgical Planning with Computer-Assisted Design, and Three-Dimensional Printing of Custom Implants. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2018;11(1):78-82. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601432.
6. Williams JV, Revington PJ. Novel use of an aerospace selective laser sintering machine for rapid prototyping of an orbital blowout fracture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(2):182-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom. 2009.12.002.
7. Gander T, Essig H, Metzler P, Lindhorst D, Dubois L, Rücker M, et al. Patient specific implants (PSI) in reconstruction of orbital floor and wall fractures. J CranioMaxilloFac Surg. 2015;43(1):126-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcms.2014.10.024.
8. Schramm A, Suarez-Cunqueiro M, Rucker M, Kokemueller H, Bormann KH, Metzger MC, et al. Computer-assisted therapy in orbital and mid-facial reconstructions. The International journal of medical robotics and computer assisted surgery. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg.2009;5:111-24.
9. He Y, Zhang Y, An JG, Gong X, Feng ZQ, Guo CB. Zygomatic surface marker-assisted surgical navigation: a new computer-assisted navigation method for accurate treatment of delayed zygomatic fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(12):2101-2114. DOI: 10.1016/j. joms.2013.07.003.
10. Karkkainen M, Wilkmanb T, Mesimaki K, Snall J. Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol. Br J Oral MaxillofacSurg. 2018;56(9):791-796. DOI: j.bjoms.2018.08.008.
11. Chepurnyi Y, Chernogorskyi D, Petrenko O, Kopchak A. Reconstruction of Post-Traumatic Orbital Defects and Deformities with Custom-Made Patient-Specific Implants: Evaluation of the Efficacy and Clinical Outcome. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstruction Open. 2019;3:9-17
12. Zhang X, Ye L, Li H, Wang Y, Dilxat D, Liu W, Chen Y, et al. Surgical navigation improves reductions accuracy of unilateral complicated zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2018 May 2;8(1):6890. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-25053-z.
13. Schouman T, Murcier G, Goudot P. The key to accuracy of zygoma repositioning: Suitability of the SynpliciTi customized guide-plates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(10):1942-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.12.014.
14. Klug C, Schicho K, Ploder O. Point-to-point computer-assisted navigation for precise transfer of planned zygoma osteotomies from the stereolithographic model into reality. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(3):550-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.024.
15. Moubayed S, Duong F, Ahmarani C, Rahal A. A Novel Technique for Malar Eminence Evaluation Using 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012;14(6):403-7.
16. Essig H, Dressel L, Rana M, Kokemueller H, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC. Precision of posttraumatic primary orbital reconstruction using individually bent titanium mesh with and without navigation: a retrospective study. Head Face Med. 2013;2:9-18. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-18, 2013.
17. Zimmerer RM, Ellis E 3rd, Aniceto GS, Schramm A, Wagner ME, Grant MP, et al. A prospective multicenter study to compare the precision of posttraumatic internal orbital reconstruction with standard preformed and individualized orbital implants. J CranioMaxilloFac Surg. 2016;44(9):1485-1497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.014.
18. Schreurs R, Dubois L, Becking AG, Maal TJJ. The orbit first! A novel surgical treatment protocol for secondary orbitozygomatic reconstruction. Journal of Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(7):1043-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.03.026.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 (160), 2021 year, 327-331 pages, index UDK 616.716.1+616.714.7]-089.843-77-089.163-089.168]-042.2

10.29254/2077-4214-2021-2-160-327-331