Patient-Specific Implant Customization for Treatment of Internal Orbital Fractures Using Office-Based Three-Dimensional Printing

被引:3
作者
Yoon, Joshua S. [1 ,2 ]
Rao, Manaahil [1 ]
Dunlow, Ryan [1 ]
Wasicek, Philip [1 ]
Ha, Michael [3 ]
Le, Paulina [4 ]
Rasko, Yvonne M. [3 ]
Liang, Fan [1 ]
Grant, Michael P. [1 ]
Nam, Arthur J. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Ctr, Div Plast Reconstruct & Maxillofacial Surg, Baltimore, MD USA
[2] George Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Washington, DC USA
[3] Univ Maryland, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Plast Surg, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Univ South Carolina, Sch Med, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Columbia, SC USA
[5] Univ South Carolina, Sch Med, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Prisma Hlth, 2 Med Pk Rd,Suite 302, Columbia, SC 29203 USA
关键词
3D printing; customized implants; orbital fractures; reconstructive surgery; MANDIBULAR RECONSTRUCTION; MULTICENTER;
D O I
10.1097/SCS.0000000000009941
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective:Three-dimensional (3D) modeling technology aids the reconstructive surgeon in designing and tailoring individualized implants for the reconstruction of complex craniofacial fractures. Three-dimensional modeling and printing have traditionally been outsourced to commercial vendors but can now be incorporated into both private and academic craniomaxillofacial practices. The goal of this report is to present a low-cost, standardized office-based workflow for restoring bony orbital volume in traumatic orbital fractures.Methods:Patients with internal orbital fractures requiring open repair were identified. After the virtual 3D models were created by iPlan 3.0 Cranial CMF software (Brainlab), the models were printed using an office-based 3D printer to shape and modify orbital plates to correctly fit the fracture defect. The accuracy of the anatomic reduction and the restored bony orbital volume measurements were determined using postoperative computed tomography images and iPlan software.Results:Nine patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 8 patients had unilateral fractures and 1 patient had bilateral fractures. Average image processing and print time were 1.5 hours and 3 hours, respectively. The cost of the 3D printer was $2500 and the average material cost to print a single orbital model was $2. When compared with the uninjured side, the mean preoperative orbital volume increase and percent difference were 2.7 +/- 1.3 mL and 10.9 +/- 5.3%, respectively. Postoperative absolute volume and percent volume difference between the orbits were -0.2 +/- 0.4 mL and -0.8 +/- 1.7%, respectively.Conclusions:Office-based 3D printing can be routinely used in the repair of internal orbital fractures in an efficient and cost-effective manner to design the implant with satisfactory patient outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:656 / 661
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Characterization of the orbital volume in normal population [J].
Andrades, Patricio ;
Cuevas, Pedro ;
Hernandez, Rodrigo ;
Danilla, Stefan ;
Villalobos, Rodrigo .
JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2018, 46 (04) :594-599
[2]   Mandibular reconstruction using plates prebent to fit rapid prototyping 3-dimensional printing models ameliorates contour deformity [J].
Azuma, Masaki ;
Yanagawa, Toru ;
Ishibashi-Kanno, Naomi ;
Uchida, Fumihiko ;
Ito, Takaaki ;
Yamagata, Kenji ;
Hasegawa, Shogo ;
Sasaki, Kaoru ;
Adachi, Koji ;
Tabuchi, Katsuhiko ;
Sekido, Mitsuru ;
Bukawa, Hiroki .
HEAD & FACE MEDICINE, 2014, 10 :45
[3]   Mandibular reconstruction after cancer: an in-house approach to manufacturing cutting guides [J].
Bosc, R. ;
Hersant, B. ;
Carloni, R. ;
Niddam, J. ;
Bouhassira, J. ;
De Kermadec, H. ;
Bequignon, E. ;
Wojcik, T. ;
Julieron, M. ;
Meningaud, J. -P. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2017, 46 (01) :24-31
[4]   Low-Cost 3D Printing Orbital Implant Templates in Secondary Orbital Reconstructions [J].
Callahan, Alison B. ;
Campbell, Ashley A. ;
Petris, Carisa ;
Kazim, Michael .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 33 (05) :376-380
[5]   Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery [J].
Chae, Michael P. ;
Rozeni, Warren M. ;
McMenamin, Paul G. ;
Findlay, Michael W. ;
Spychal, Robert T. ;
Hunter-Smith, David J. .
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2015, 2
[6]   Office-Based Three-Dimensional Printing Workflow for Craniomaxillofacial Fracture Repair [J].
Elegbede, Adekunle ;
Diaconu, Silviu C. ;
McNichols, Colton H. L. ;
Seu, Michelle ;
Rasko, Yvonne M. ;
Grant, Michael P. ;
Nam, Arthur J. .
JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2018, 29 (05) :E440-E444
[7]   Computer-assisted design and rapid prototype modeling in microvascular mandible reconstruction [J].
Hanasono, Matthew M. ;
Skoracki, Roman J. .
LARYNGOSCOPE, 2013, 123 (03) :597-604
[8]   3D Printing: current use in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery [J].
Hsieh, Tsung-yen ;
Dedhia, Raj ;
Cervenka, Brian ;
Tollefson, Travis T. .
CURRENT OPINION IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY & HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2017, 25 (04) :291-299
[9]   Benefits and Limitations of Entry-Level 3-Dimensional Printing of Maxillofacial Skeletal Models [J].
Legocki, Alex T. ;
Duffy-Peter, Andrew ;
Scott, Andrew R. .
JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 2017, 143 (04) :389-394
[10]   Cost Analysis for In-house versus Industry-printed Skull Models for Acute Midfacial Fractures [J].
Lor, Lyfong S. ;
Massary, Dominic A. ;
Chung, Scotty A. ;
Brown, Philip J. ;
Runyan, Christopher M. .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2020, 8 (05)