Digital navigation and 3D model technology in mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flap: A comparative study

Ni, Youkang; Zhang, Xuedi; Meng, Zhizhu; Li, Zijia; Li, Siqi; Xu, Zhongfei; Sun, C. P.; Liu, Fa‐Yu; Duan, Weiyi

doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2020.11.002

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Navigation is currently being utilized in different fields of mandibular surgery. In oncological surgery, navigation is used to guide tumour resection and/or bone reconstruction 1,5,43,45,49,53,59,62,65,67,68,71,72,99 . Often, the osteotomies and bone reconstruction are planned preoperatively based on CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.…”

Section: Applications Of Surgical Navigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This review does not report the surgical outcomes of the navigated procedures. Many studies reported the surgical outcomes in terms of 'image-to-image' error, surgical precision, osteotomy accuracy, or reconstruction accuracy 1,3,37,38,45,52,53,55,56,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][71][72][73]75,76,83,84,[86][87][88][89]92,[94][95][96][97][99][100][101] . To calculate these metrics, often a postoperative CT scan was registered with the preoperative plan, and cutting planes or landmark positions were compared.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Registration methods for surgical navigation of the mandible: a systematic review

Geer¹,

Koning²,

Alphen³

et al. 2022

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Applications Of Surgical Navigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Registration methods for surgical navigation of the mandible: a systematic review

Geer¹,

Koning²,

Alphen³

et al. 2022

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The fibula has so far not been included in previous mesh accuracy assessments, despite its digitization in several biomechanical studies, alongside the tibia (e.g., Marchi, 2005 , 2007 , 2015b ; Marchi, 2015a ; Marchi et al, 2019 , 2022 ). In addition, fibular 3D meshes are routinely utilized in reconstructive surgery, in the assessment of tibio‐fibular syndesmotic reductions performed after ankle fractures (e.g., Ebinger et al, 2013 ; Souleiman et al, 2021 ) and surgical planning of mandibular reconstructions from fibular free flaps (e.g., Damecourt et al, 2020 ; Ni et al, 2021 ; Ren et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual‐energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aims to test accuracy and comparability of 3D models of human skeletal fibulae generated by clinical CT and laser scanner virtual acquisitions. Mesh topology, segmentation and smoothing protocols were tested to assess variation among meshes generated with different scanning methods and procedures, and to evaluate meshes‐interchangeability in 3D geometric morphometric analysis. A sample of 13 left human fibulae were scanned separately with Revolution Discovery CT dual energy (0.625 mm resolution) and ARTEC Space Spider 3D structured light laser scanner (0.1 mm resolution). Different segmentation methods, including half‐maximum height (HMH) and MIA‐clustering protocols, were compared to their high‐resolution standard generated with laser‐scanner by calculating topological surface deviations. Different smoothing algorithms were also evaluated, such as Laplacian and Taubin smoothing. A total of 142 semilandmarks were used to capture the shape of both proximal and distal fibular epiphyses. After Generalized Procrustes superimposition, the Procrustes coordinates of the proximal and distal fibular epiphyses were used separately to assess variation due to scanning methods and the operator error. Smoothing algorithms at low iteration do not provide significant variation among reconstructions, but segmentation protocol may influence final mesh quality (0.09–0.24 mm). Mean deviation among CT‐generated meshes that were segmented with MIA‐clustering protocol, and laser scanner‐generated ones, is optimal (0.42 mm, ranging 0.35–0.56 mm). Principal component analysis reveals that homologous samples scanned with the two methods cluster together for both the proximal and distal fibular epiphyses. Similarly, Procrustes ANOVA reveals no shape differences between scanning methods and replicates, and only 1.38–1.43% of shape variation is due to scanning device. Topological similarities support the comparability of CT‐ and laser scanner‐generated meshes and validate its simultaneous use in shape analysis with potential clinical relevance. We precautionarily suggest that dedicated trials should be performed in each study when merging different data sources prior to analyses.

show abstract

Design and implementation of a surgical planning system for robotic assisted mandible reconstruction with fibula free flap

Guo

et al. 2022

Int J CARS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital navigation and 3D model technology in mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flap: A comparative study

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Registration methods for surgical navigation of the mandible: a systematic review

Registration methods for surgical navigation of the mandible: a systematic review

Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual‐energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation

Design and implementation of a surgical planning system for robotic assisted mandible reconstruction with fibula free flap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About