Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2006
Efficacy of computer-assited surgery in secondary orbital reconstruction.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lauer Günter, Pradel Winnie, Schneider Matthias, Eckelt Uwe
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this study the efficacy of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) used for secondary orbital reconstruction after midfacial fractures was evaluated, comparing the clinical outcome with that after conventional surgery (CS). Special consideration was given to whether CAS can reduce the number of secondary corrections.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients (24 orbits; 12 in each group) were assessed for enophthalmos, diplopia, and aesthetics during a follow-up period of up to 3 years.
RESULTS: After CAS, enophthalmos was fully corrected in 8 of 11 orbits but after CS in only 6 of 10 orbits. Improvement of diplopia was achieved in 1 of 7 (CAS) and in 3 of 4 (CS) patients. The aesthetic result after secondary reconstruction and additional surgery was better in the CAS group. Additional surgery to correct bony structures was only necessary in 3 patients of the CS group. Additional soft tissue surgery was necessary in both groups.
CONCLUSION: CAS can improve the clinical outcome of reconstructive bone surgery reducing the amount of additional hard tissue procedures. It was helpful during dissection of the scarred orbital tissue and placement of a graft. However, it had no impact on soft tissue correction especially with respect to function.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients (24 orbits; 12 in each group) were assessed for enophthalmos, diplopia, and aesthetics during a follow-up period of up to 3 years.
RESULTS: After CAS, enophthalmos was fully corrected in 8 of 11 orbits but after CS in only 6 of 10 orbits. Improvement of diplopia was achieved in 1 of 7 (CAS) and in 3 of 4 (CS) patients. The aesthetic result after secondary reconstruction and additional surgery was better in the CAS group. Additional surgery to correct bony structures was only necessary in 3 patients of the CS group. Additional soft tissue surgery was necessary in both groups.
CONCLUSION: CAS can improve the clinical outcome of reconstructive bone surgery reducing the amount of additional hard tissue procedures. It was helpful during dissection of the scarred orbital tissue and placement of a graft. However, it had no impact on soft tissue correction especially with respect to function.