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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |