Customized Titanium Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures Using a Mirroring Technique for Virtual Reconstruction and 3D Model Printing

Surgical Outcomes of Orbital Fracture Reconstruction Using Patient-Specific Implants

“…Surgeries for one-wall orbital fractures were shorter (median 92 min; IQR 72.5-116.3) compared to those for multiwall fractures (median 130 min; IQR 125-145). This coincides with a previous study on orbital reconstructions using customized stock implants through 3D bio-models [13]. Therefore, compared with the bio-model method, the use of PSIs did not decrease the mean surgery time; however, the preoperative digital planning time was increased.…”

“…At the end of the follow-up period, diplopia was observed in only five cases (19.2%). This finding was slightly higher than that in a previous retrospective study on customized stock implants [13] (binocular diplopia in 8.8% of cases), and slightly lower than that in a prospective multicenter study on PSIs [11]. This discrepancy may be explained by the longer follow-up period of the preceding studies.…”

Virtual Surgical Planning and 3-Dimensional Printing for the Treatment of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex and/or Orbital Fracture

“…Generally, there was no significant difference in orbital volumes between MS and M2 (P > 0.05) regarding all fracture types (Orbital fracture, ZMC fracture, and combined fracture) with the use of miniplates and titanium mesh prebend on a 3D printing model, which provides a precise adaptation of the titanium plate concerning important landmarks (eg, posterior ledge, ethmoidal bulge), which are often difficult to determine intraoperatively. This opinion is going with Blumer et al, 13 who assessed the clinical and radiologic outcomes of the cases of orbital fracture that were reconstructed using titanium meshes, customized by molding to a 3D-printed model based on a virtual reconstruction achieved by the mirroring of the uninjured side and showed that utilizing this approach yielded good and reliable results, enhancing surgical precision and decreasing the need for intra-operative revision, as well as minimizing the long-term sequelae of orbital fracture. On the contrary, this interpretation does not correspond with a study done by Eldek et al 5 on 10 patients with unilateral orbital floor fracture, which reported no statistical difference in the percentage of correction.…”

Critical appraisal of patient-specific implants for secondary post-traumatic orbital reconstruction

“…The present study is novel in presenting a large sample of patients who had undergone secondary orbital reconstruction with a PSI. The increased difficulties in secondary orbital reconstruction relating to scarring, distorted bony anatomy, soft tissue deformity, and the presence of pre-existing hardware has been described extensively in the literature 10,[35][36][37][38][39] . Several case studies describing PSI in secondary reconstruction have advocated their use specifically for secondary reconstruction 7,13,14,27,28 .…”