Cargando…

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in maxillary reconstruction has proven its value regarding more predictable postoperative results. However, the accuracy evaluation methods differ between studies, and no meta-analysis has been performed yet. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Embase, an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Baar, Gustaaf J. C., Schipper, Kitty, Forouzanfar, Tymour, Leeuwrik, Lars, Winters, Henri A. H., Ridwan-Pramana, Angela, Leusink, Frank K. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002284/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33809600
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061226
_version_ 1783671427717660672
author van Baar, Gustaaf J. C.
Schipper, Kitty
Forouzanfar, Tymour
Leeuwrik, Lars
Winters, Henri A. H.
Ridwan-Pramana, Angela
Leusink, Frank K. J.
author_facet van Baar, Gustaaf J. C.
Schipper, Kitty
Forouzanfar, Tymour
Leeuwrik, Lars
Winters, Henri A. H.
Ridwan-Pramana, Angela
Leusink, Frank K. J.
author_sort van Baar, Gustaaf J. C.
collection PubMed
description Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in maxillary reconstruction has proven its value regarding more predictable postoperative results. However, the accuracy evaluation methods differ between studies, and no meta-analysis has been performed yet. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, using a Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) method: (P) patients in need of maxillary reconstruction using free osteocutaneous tissue transfer, (I) reconstructed according to a virtual plan in CAS software, (C) compared to the actual postoperative result, and (O) postoperatively measured by a quantitative accuracy assessment) search strategy, and was reported according to the PRISMA statement. We reviewed all of the studies that quantitatively assessed the accuracy of maxillary reconstructions using CAS. Twelve studies matched the inclusion criteria, reporting 67 maxillary reconstructions. All of the included studies compared postoperative 3D models to preoperative 3D models (revised to the virtual plan). The postoperative accuracy measurements mainly focused on the position of the fibular bony segments. Only approximate comparisons of postoperative accuracy between studies were feasible because of small differences in the postoperative measurement methods; the accuracy of the bony segment positioning ranged between 0.44 mm and 7.8 mm, and between 2.90° and 6.96°. A postoperative evaluation guideline to create uniformity in evaluation methods needs to be considered so as to allow for valid comparisons of postoperative results and to facilitate meta-analyses in the future. With the proper validation of the postoperative results, future research might explore more definitive evidence regarding the management and superiority of CAS in maxillary and midface reconstruction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8002284
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80022842021-03-28 Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review van Baar, Gustaaf J. C. Schipper, Kitty Forouzanfar, Tymour Leeuwrik, Lars Winters, Henri A. H. Ridwan-Pramana, Angela Leusink, Frank K. J. J Clin Med Review Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in maxillary reconstruction has proven its value regarding more predictable postoperative results. However, the accuracy evaluation methods differ between studies, and no meta-analysis has been performed yet. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, using a Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) method: (P) patients in need of maxillary reconstruction using free osteocutaneous tissue transfer, (I) reconstructed according to a virtual plan in CAS software, (C) compared to the actual postoperative result, and (O) postoperatively measured by a quantitative accuracy assessment) search strategy, and was reported according to the PRISMA statement. We reviewed all of the studies that quantitatively assessed the accuracy of maxillary reconstructions using CAS. Twelve studies matched the inclusion criteria, reporting 67 maxillary reconstructions. All of the included studies compared postoperative 3D models to preoperative 3D models (revised to the virtual plan). The postoperative accuracy measurements mainly focused on the position of the fibular bony segments. Only approximate comparisons of postoperative accuracy between studies were feasible because of small differences in the postoperative measurement methods; the accuracy of the bony segment positioning ranged between 0.44 mm and 7.8 mm, and between 2.90° and 6.96°. A postoperative evaluation guideline to create uniformity in evaluation methods needs to be considered so as to allow for valid comparisons of postoperative results and to facilitate meta-analyses in the future. With the proper validation of the postoperative results, future research might explore more definitive evidence regarding the management and superiority of CAS in maxillary and midface reconstruction. MDPI 2021-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8002284/ /pubmed/33809600 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061226 Text en © 2021 by the authors. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
van Baar, Gustaaf J. C.
Schipper, Kitty
Forouzanfar, Tymour
Leeuwrik, Lars
Winters, Henri A. H.
Ridwan-Pramana, Angela
Leusink, Frank K. J.
Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title_full Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title_short Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Surgery in Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
title_sort accuracy of computer-assisted surgery in maxillary reconstruction: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002284/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33809600
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10061226
work_keys_str_mv AT vanbaargustaafjc accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT schipperkitty accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT forouzanfartymour accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT leeuwriklars accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT wintershenriah accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT ridwanpramanaangela accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview
AT leusinkfrankkj accuracyofcomputerassistedsurgeryinmaxillaryreconstructionasystematicreview