Impact of intraoperative CT on implant accuracy and reoperation rates in orbital floor reconstruction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v61.46475Keywords:
Orbital floor fracture, orbital reconstruction, intraoperative computed tomography, implant malposition, reoperation rateAbstract
Background: Implant malposition is a leading cause of reoperation after orbital floor reconstruction. Intraoperative computed tomography (CT) enables immediate assessment and correction, however its impact on implant positioning accuracy and outcomes remains insufficiently studied.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 86 patients with isolated orbital floor fractures treated with radiopaque implants between 2011 and 2023 at Uppsala University Hospital. Sixty-five patients underwent postoperative CT and 21 intraoperative CT. Eight senior surgeons from all Swedish university hospitals independently reviewed anonymized scans under hypothetical intraoperative and postoperative conditions, indicating whether they would adjust the implant intraoperatively or recommend reoperation postoperatively. In the intraoperative group, implant position was assessed on final CT obtained after any CT-guided adjustment. Actual re-intervention rates were recorded.
Results: Recommendations for implant adjustment were significantly more frequent in the postoperative CT group than in the intraoperative CT group (45% vs. 19%, p = 0.042). Unanimous agreement that no adjustment was required occurred more often in the intraoperative CT group (48% vs. 22%). Consensus among ≥3 experts favoring reoperation was observed in 20% of postoperative cases and in none of the intraoperative cases. The perceived need for reoperation was lower in the intraoperative than in the postoperative CT group (5% vs. 15%, p = 0.45), as were actual reoperation rates (5% vs. 11%, p = 0.68).
Conclusions: Intraoperative CT was associated with improved expert-assessed implant positioning. Although reoperation rates were lower in the intraoperative CT group, these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Downloads
References
Brucoli M, Arcuri F, Cavenaghi R, et al. Analysis of complications after surgical repair of orbital fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(4):1387–1390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821cc317
Hossal BM, Beatty RL. Diplopia and enophthalmos after surgical repair of blowout fracture. Orbit. 2002;21(1):27–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1076/orbi.21.1.27.2598
Schlittler F, Schmidli A, Wagner F, et al. What is the incidence of implant malpositioning and revision surgery after orbital repair? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(1):146–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.08.024
Gander T, Blumer M, Rostetter C, et al. Intraoperative 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomographic imaging during reconstruction of the zygoma and orbit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126(2):192–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.04.008
Vorbau R, Hulthén M, Omar A. Task-based image quality assessment of an intraoperative CBCT for spine surgery compared with conventional CT. Phys Med. 2024;124:103426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103426
Ronkainen AP, Al-Gburi A, Liimatainen T, et al. A dose–neutral image quality comparison of different CBCT and CT systems using paranasal sinus imaging protocols and phantoms. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(9):4407–4414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07271-4
Shokri A, Foroozandeh M, Doosti Irani A, et al. Comparison of diagnostic quality of multidetector computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography in high and low resolution modes for assessment of the nasal cavity. World J Plast Surg. 2023;12(2):77–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61186/wjps.12.2.77
Zimmerer RM, Gellrich NC. Intraoperative imaging and postoperative quality control. In: Facial trauma surgery. Amir H. Dorafshar, Eduardo D. Rodriguez, Paul N. Manson. Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2020. p. 32–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-49755-8.00011-6
Rashid A, Feinberg L, Fan K. The application of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the diagnosis and management of maxillofacial trauma. Diagnostics. 2024;14(4):373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14040373
Goh EZ, Bullis S, Beech N, et al. Intraoperative computed tomography for orbital reconstruction: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;53(2):127–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2023.05.002
Greenwald HS, Keeney AH, Shannon GM. A review of 128 patients with orbital fractures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1974;78(4):655–664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)76304-4
Cuddy K, Khatib B, Bell RB, et al. Use of intraoperative computed tomography in craniomaxillofacial trauma surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(5):1016–1025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.12.004
Wilde F, Lorenz K, Ebner AK, et al. Intraoperative imaging with a 3D C-Arm system after zygomatico-orbital complex fracture reduction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(5):894–910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.031
Nguyen E, Lockyer J, Erasmus J, et al. Improved outcomes of orbital reconstruction with intraoperative imaging and rapid prototyping. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(6):1211–1217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.02.004
Menon A, Karikal A, Shetty V. Does C-Arm guidance improve reduction of zygomatic arch fractures? A randomized controlled trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(11):2376–2386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.05.026
Nikunen M, Rajantie H, Marttila E, et al. Implant malposition and revision surgery in primary orbital fracture reconstructions. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2021;49(9):837–844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.04.008
Senese O, Boutremans E, Gossiaux C, et al. Retrospective analysis of 79 patients with orbital floor fracture: outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction. Arch Craniofacial Surg. 2018;19(2):108–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2018.01837
Nowinski D, Messo E, Hedlund A. Treatment of orbital fractures: evaluation of surgical techniques and materials for reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(4):1033–1037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e4345d
Zimmerer RM, Gellrich NC, Von Bülow S, et al. Is there more to the clinical outcome in posttraumatic reconstruction of the inferior and medial orbital walls than accuracy of implant placement and implant surface contouring? A prospective multicenter study to identify predictors of clinical outcome. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2018;46(4):578–587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.01.007
Gart MS, Gosain AK. Evidence-based medicine: orbital floor fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1345–1355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000719
Chen CT, Huang F, Chen YR. Management of posttraumatic enophthalmos. Chang Gung Med J. 2006;29(3):251–261.
Cole P, Kaufman Y, Hollier L. Principles of facial trauma: orbital fracture management. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(1):101–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318190e1b6
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anna Persson, Anders Arbrandt, Babak Alinasab, Nikoo Bazsefidpay, Ulf Höckerfelt, Anders Johansson, Eva Larsson, Konstantinos Roussos, Andreas Thor, Daniel Nowinski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from 2024 all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
