Cargando…

Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare pre-shaped implants on a patient-specific 3D-printed (3DP) model to manual free-hand shaping (MFS) for orbital wall reconstruction. The PRISMA protocol was followed in this study, and the review was registered in the PROSPE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Ashutosh Kumar, Khanal, Nikita, Chaulagain, Rajib, Sharma, Neha, Thieringer, Florian M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10219303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37240532
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103426
_version_ 1785048977956143104
author Singh, Ashutosh Kumar
Khanal, Nikita
Chaulagain, Rajib
Sharma, Neha
Thieringer, Florian M.
author_facet Singh, Ashutosh Kumar
Khanal, Nikita
Chaulagain, Rajib
Sharma, Neha
Thieringer, Florian M.
author_sort Singh, Ashutosh Kumar
collection PubMed
description This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare pre-shaped implants on a patient-specific 3D-printed (3DP) model to manual free-hand shaping (MFS) for orbital wall reconstruction. The PRISMA protocol was followed in this study, and the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021261594). A search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, and the grey literature. Ten articles were included, and six outcomes were analyzed. In total, 281 patients were in the 3DP group and 283 were in the MFS group. The studies had an overall high risk of bias. 3DP models resulted in a better accuracy of fit, anatomical angle reproduction, and defect area coverage. The correction of orbital volume was also superior with statistical significance. There was a higher percentage of the correction of enophthalmos and diplopia in the 3DP group. Intraoperative bleeding and hospital stay were reduced in the 3DP group. The meta-analysis of operative time showed a reduction in the average operative time by 23.58 min (95% CI: −43.98 to −3.19), which was statistically significant (t(6) = −2.8299, p = 0.0300). The 3DP models appear advantageous for an accurate orbital wall reconstruction, with fewer complications than those for conventional free-hand-shaped implants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10219303
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102193032023-05-27 Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Singh, Ashutosh Kumar Khanal, Nikita Chaulagain, Rajib Sharma, Neha Thieringer, Florian M. J Clin Med Review This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare pre-shaped implants on a patient-specific 3D-printed (3DP) model to manual free-hand shaping (MFS) for orbital wall reconstruction. The PRISMA protocol was followed in this study, and the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021261594). A search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, and the grey literature. Ten articles were included, and six outcomes were analyzed. In total, 281 patients were in the 3DP group and 283 were in the MFS group. The studies had an overall high risk of bias. 3DP models resulted in a better accuracy of fit, anatomical angle reproduction, and defect area coverage. The correction of orbital volume was also superior with statistical significance. There was a higher percentage of the correction of enophthalmos and diplopia in the 3DP group. Intraoperative bleeding and hospital stay were reduced in the 3DP group. The meta-analysis of operative time showed a reduction in the average operative time by 23.58 min (95% CI: −43.98 to −3.19), which was statistically significant (t(6) = −2.8299, p = 0.0300). The 3DP models appear advantageous for an accurate orbital wall reconstruction, with fewer complications than those for conventional free-hand-shaped implants. MDPI 2023-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10219303/ /pubmed/37240532 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103426 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Singh, Ashutosh Kumar
Khanal, Nikita
Chaulagain, Rajib
Sharma, Neha
Thieringer, Florian M.
Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Is the Pre-Shaping of an Orbital Implant on a Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Model Advantageous Compared to Conventional Free-Hand Shaping? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort is the pre-shaping of an orbital implant on a patient-specific 3d-printed model advantageous compared to conventional free-hand shaping? a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10219303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37240532
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103426
work_keys_str_mv AT singhashutoshkumar isthepreshapingofanorbitalimplantonapatientspecific3dprintedmodeladvantageouscomparedtoconventionalfreehandshapingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT khanalnikita isthepreshapingofanorbitalimplantonapatientspecific3dprintedmodeladvantageouscomparedtoconventionalfreehandshapingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chaulagainrajib isthepreshapingofanorbitalimplantonapatientspecific3dprintedmodeladvantageouscomparedtoconventionalfreehandshapingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sharmaneha isthepreshapingofanorbitalimplantonapatientspecific3dprintedmodeladvantageouscomparedtoconventionalfreehandshapingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT thieringerflorianm isthepreshapingofanorbitalimplantonapatientspecific3dprintedmodeladvantageouscomparedtoconventionalfreehandshapingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis