TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of computer-assisted surgery in mandibular reconstruction: A systematic review
T2 - A systematic review
AU - van Baar, G.J.C.
AU - Forouzanfar, T.
AU - Liberton, N.P.T.J.
AU - Winters, H.A.H.
AU - Leusink, F.K.J.
N1 - With supplementary materials.
PY - 2018/9/1
Y1 - 2018/9/1
N2 - Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) for mandibular reconstruction was developed to improve conventional treatment methods. In the past years, many different software programs have entered the market, offering numerous approaches for preoperative planning and postoperative evaluation of the CAS process of mandibular reconstruction. In this systematic review, we reviewed planning and evaluation methods in studies that quantitatively assessed accuracy of mandibular reconstruction performed with CAS. We included 42 studies describing 413 mandibular reconstructions planned and evaluated using CAS. The commonest software was Proplan/Surgicase CMF (55%). In most cases, the postoperative virtual 3-dimensional model was compared to the preoperative 3-dimensional model, revised to the virtual plan (64%). The commonest landmark for accuracy measurements was the condyle (54%). Accuracy deviations ranged between 0 mm and 12.5 mm and between 0.9° and 17.5°. Because of a lack of uniformity in planning (e.g., image acquisition, mandibular resection size) and evaluation methodologies, the ability to compare postoperative outcomes was limited; meta-analysis was not performed. A practical and simple guideline for standardizing planning and evaluation methods needs to be considered to allow valid comparisons of postoperative results and facilitate meta-analysis in the future.
AB - Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) for mandibular reconstruction was developed to improve conventional treatment methods. In the past years, many different software programs have entered the market, offering numerous approaches for preoperative planning and postoperative evaluation of the CAS process of mandibular reconstruction. In this systematic review, we reviewed planning and evaluation methods in studies that quantitatively assessed accuracy of mandibular reconstruction performed with CAS. We included 42 studies describing 413 mandibular reconstructions planned and evaluated using CAS. The commonest software was Proplan/Surgicase CMF (55%). In most cases, the postoperative virtual 3-dimensional model was compared to the preoperative 3-dimensional model, revised to the virtual plan (64%). The commonest landmark for accuracy measurements was the condyle (54%). Accuracy deviations ranged between 0 mm and 12.5 mm and between 0.9° and 17.5°. Because of a lack of uniformity in planning (e.g., image acquisition, mandibular resection size) and evaluation methodologies, the ability to compare postoperative outcomes was limited; meta-analysis was not performed. A practical and simple guideline for standardizing planning and evaluation methods needs to be considered to allow valid comparisons of postoperative results and facilitate meta-analysis in the future.
KW - Computer-aided design
KW - Computer-aided manufacturing
KW - Computer-assisted
KW - Data accuracy
KW - Free tissue flaps
KW - Mandibular reconstruction
KW - Oral cancer
KW - Printing
KW - Software
KW - Surgery
KW - Three-dimensional
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050140378&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/31064119/1_s2.0_S1368837518302513_mmc1.docx
UR - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/31064121/1_s2.0_S1368837518302513_mmc2.docx
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85050140378&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30115476
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.07.004
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.07.004
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30115476
SN - 1368-8375
VL - 84
SP - 52
EP - 60
JO - Oral Oncology
JF - Oral Oncology
ER -