Cargando…
Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept
INTRODUCTION: In orbital reconstruction, the optimal location of a predefined implant can be planned preoperatively. Surgical results can be assessed intraoperatively or postoperatively. A novel method for quantifying orbital implant position is introduced. The method measures predictability of impl...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4777501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26939123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150162 |
_version_ | 1782419313204920320 |
---|---|
author | Schreurs, Ruud Dubois, Leander Becking, Alfred G. Maal, Thomas J. J. |
author_facet | Schreurs, Ruud Dubois, Leander Becking, Alfred G. Maal, Thomas J. J. |
author_sort | Schreurs, Ruud |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: In orbital reconstruction, the optimal location of a predefined implant can be planned preoperatively. Surgical results can be assessed intraoperatively or postoperatively. A novel method for quantifying orbital implant position is introduced. The method measures predictability of implant placement: transformation parameters between planned and resulting implant position are quantified. METHODS: The method was tested on 3 human specimen heads. Computed Tomography scans were acquired at baseline with intact orbits (t0), after creation of the defect (t1) and postoperatively after reconstruction of the defect using a preformed implant (t2). Prior to reconstruction, the optimal implant position was planned on the t0 and t1 scans. Postoperatively, the planned and realized implant position were compared. The t0 and t2 scans were fused using iPlan software and the resulting implant was segmented in the fused t2 scan. An implant reference frame was created (Orbital Implant Positioning Frame); the planned implant was transformed to the reference position using an Iterative Closest Point approach. The segmentation of the resulting implant was also registered on the reference position, yielding rotational (pitch, yaw, roll) as well as translational parameters of implant position. RESULTS: Measurement with the Orbital Implant Positioning Frame proved feasible on all three specimen. The positional outcome provided more thorough and accurate insight in resulting implant position than could be gathered from distance measurements alone. Observer-related errors were abolished from the process, since the method is largely automatic. CONCLUSION: A novel method of quantifying surgical outcome in orbital reconstructive surgery was presented. The presented Orbital Implant Positioning Frame assessed all parameters involved in implant displacement. The method proved to be viable on three human specimen heads. Clinically, the method could provide direct feedback intraoperatively and could improve postoperative evaluation of orbital reconstructive surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4777501 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47775012016-03-10 Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept Schreurs, Ruud Dubois, Leander Becking, Alfred G. Maal, Thomas J. J. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: In orbital reconstruction, the optimal location of a predefined implant can be planned preoperatively. Surgical results can be assessed intraoperatively or postoperatively. A novel method for quantifying orbital implant position is introduced. The method measures predictability of implant placement: transformation parameters between planned and resulting implant position are quantified. METHODS: The method was tested on 3 human specimen heads. Computed Tomography scans were acquired at baseline with intact orbits (t0), after creation of the defect (t1) and postoperatively after reconstruction of the defect using a preformed implant (t2). Prior to reconstruction, the optimal implant position was planned on the t0 and t1 scans. Postoperatively, the planned and realized implant position were compared. The t0 and t2 scans were fused using iPlan software and the resulting implant was segmented in the fused t2 scan. An implant reference frame was created (Orbital Implant Positioning Frame); the planned implant was transformed to the reference position using an Iterative Closest Point approach. The segmentation of the resulting implant was also registered on the reference position, yielding rotational (pitch, yaw, roll) as well as translational parameters of implant position. RESULTS: Measurement with the Orbital Implant Positioning Frame proved feasible on all three specimen. The positional outcome provided more thorough and accurate insight in resulting implant position than could be gathered from distance measurements alone. Observer-related errors were abolished from the process, since the method is largely automatic. CONCLUSION: A novel method of quantifying surgical outcome in orbital reconstructive surgery was presented. The presented Orbital Implant Positioning Frame assessed all parameters involved in implant displacement. The method proved to be viable on three human specimen heads. Clinically, the method could provide direct feedback intraoperatively and could improve postoperative evaluation of orbital reconstructive surgery. Public Library of Science 2016-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4777501/ /pubmed/26939123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150162 Text en © 2016 Schreurs et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schreurs, Ruud Dubois, Leander Becking, Alfred G. Maal, Thomas J. J. Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title | Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title_full | Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title_fullStr | Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title_short | Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position – A Proof of Concept |
title_sort | quantitative assessment of orbital implant position – a proof of concept |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4777501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26939123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150162 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schreursruud quantitativeassessmentoforbitalimplantpositionaproofofconcept AT duboisleander quantitativeassessmentoforbitalimplantpositionaproofofconcept AT beckingalfredg quantitativeassessmentoforbitalimplantpositionaproofofconcept AT maalthomasjj quantitativeassessmentoforbitalimplantpositionaproofofconcept |