Patient-specific implants are accurate and cost-effective for blow-out fracture reconstruction: a retrospective case-control study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v61.46676Keywords:
Craniofacial, trauma, cost effectiveness, blow-out fracture, patient-specific implantAbstract
Background: The volume of the bony orbit increases in facial trauma with a blow-out fracture and may lead to enophthalmos and double vision. The orbit’s volume can be restored surgically. The authors aimed to determine the most accurate and cost-effective method for reconstructing blow-out fractures: virtual surgical planning (VSP) combined with patient-specific implants (PSI) or standard titanium stock implants.
Materials and methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study of patients who sustained a blow-out fracture requiring surgical reconstruction. Patients were categorized into two groups: the PSI group (n = 13) and the standard titanium stock implant group (n = 36). The primary aim was to analyze the total cost in each group, with a secondary aim to ensure volumetric restoration was achieved. Postoperative volume, operation time, need for reoperation, surgical and inpatient costs, and cost-effectiveness were calculated. The data were analyzed with Shapiro–Wilk, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher’s exact test, using a significance level of 0.05.
Results: The operation time was significantly shorter in the PSI group than in the stock implant group, with an average of 89.77 and 122.69 min, respectively (p = 0.008), resulting in lower total costs in the PSI group. The PSI group had better postoperative volumetric restoration than the stock implant group compared to the contralateral side (p = 0.01). Four out of 36 patients (11%) needed reoperation in the stock implant group.
Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest that PSI requires a shorter operation time and is therefore cost-effective without compromising surgical outcomes.
Downloads
References
Patel S, Shokri T, Ziai K, et al. Controversies and contemporary management of orbital floor fractures. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2022;15(3):237–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875211026430
Scolozzi P. Reflections on a patient-centered approach to treatment of blow-out fractures: why the wisdom of the past must guide our decision-making. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(7):2268–2276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.034
Taxis J, Ungerboeck L, Gehrking MR, et al. Two-dimensional post-traumatic measurements of orbital floor blowout fractures underestimate defect sizes compared to three-dimensional approaches. Tomography. 2023;9(2):579–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography9020047
Boyette JR, Pemberton JD, Bonilla-Velez J. Management of orbital fractures: challenges and solutions. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2127–2137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S80463
Burnstine MA. Clinical recommendations for repair of isolated orbital floor fractures: an evidence-based analysis. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(7):1207–1210; discussion 1210–1211; quiz 1212–1213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01057-6
Ellis E, 3rd, Tan Y. Assessment of internal orbital reconstructions for pure blowout fractures: cranial bone grafts versus titanium mesh. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61(4):442–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2003.50085
Bourry M, Hardouin JB, Fauvel F, et al. Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of materials used for primary reconstruction of orbital floor defects: meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2021;43(2):679–690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26518
Damgaard OE, Larsen CG, Felding UA, et al. Surgical timing of the orbital ‘blowout’ fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(3):387–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816647943
Gander T, Essig H, Metzler P, et al. Patient specific implants (PSI) in reconstruction of orbital floor and wall fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(1):126–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.024
Kormi E, Männistö V, Lusila N, et al. Accuracy of patient-specific meshes as a reconstruction of orbital floor blow-out fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):e116–e119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006821
Suojanen J, Leikola J, Stoor P. The use of patient-specific implants in orthognathic surgery: a series of 32 maxillary osteotomy patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(12):1913–1916. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.09.008
Suojanen J, Leikola J, Stoor P. The use of patient-specific implants in orthognathic surgery: a series of 30 mandible sagittal split osteotomy patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(6):990–994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.021
Stoor P, Suomalainen A, Lindqvist C, et al. Rapid prototyped patient specific implants for reconstruction of orbital wall defects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(8):1644–1649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.05.006
Goodson AMC, Parmar S, Ganesh S, et al. Printed titanium implants in UK craniomaxillofacial surgery. Part I: access to digital planning and perceived scope for use in common procedures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59(3):312–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.087
Chepurnyi Y, Chernohorskyi D, Prykhodko D, et al. Reliability of orbital volume measurements based on computed tomography segmentation: validation of different algorithms in orbital trauma patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(6):574–581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.03.007
Zieliński R, Malińska M, Kozakiewicz M. Classical versus custom orbital wall reconstruction: selected factors regarding surgery and hospitalization. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:710–715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.008
Healey T, El-Othmani MM, Healey J, et al. Improving operating room efficiency, Part 1: general managerial and preoperative strategies. JBJS Rev. 2015;3(10):e3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.N.00109
Singh AK, Khanal N, Chaulagain R, et al. Is the pre-shaping of an orbital implant on a patient-specific 3D-printed model advantageous compared to conventional free-hand shaping? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(10):3426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103426
Schlittler F, Vig N, Burkhard JP, et al. What are the limitations of the non-patient-specific implant in titanium reconstruction of the orbit? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(9):e80–e85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.06.038
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
Murray-Douglass A, Snoswell C, Winter C, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) printing for post-traumatic orbital reconstruction, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;60(9):1176–1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2022.07.001
Krahn M. Principles of economic evaluation in surgery. World J Surg. 1999;23(12):1242–1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900656
Andrades P, Cuevas P, Hernández R, et al. Characterization of the orbital volume in normal population. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46(4):594–599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.02.003
Shyu VB, Hsu CE, Chen CH, et al. 3D-assisted quantitative assessment of orbital volume using an open-source software platform in a Taiwanese population. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119589
Choi SH, Kang DH, Gu JH. The correlation between the orbital volume ratio and enophthalmos in unoperated blowout fractures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(6):518–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.6.518
Zhang Z, Zhang Y, He Y, et al. Correlation between volume of herniated orbital contents and the amount of enophthalmos in orbital floor and wall fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):68–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.036
Sabelis JF, Schreurs R, Essig H, et al. Personalized medicine workflow in post-traumatic orbital reconstruction. J Pers Med. 2022;12(9):1366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12091366
Kärkkäinen M, Wilkman T, Mesimäki K, et al. Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56:791–796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.008
Chepurnyi Y, Chernohorskyi D, Zhukovtceva O, et al. Automatic evaluation of the orbital shape after application of conventional and patient-specific implants: correlation of initial trauma patterns and outcome. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(4):733–737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.10.003
Andrades P, Hernandez D, Falguera MI, et al. Degrees of tolerance in post-traumatic orbital volume correction: the role of prefabricated mesh. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(11):2404–2411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.11.024
Nikunen M, Rajantie H, Marttila E, et al. Implant malposition and revision surgery in primary orbital fracture reconstructions. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(9):837–844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.04.008
Saptarshi VR, Natarajan S, Sudhakar Baviskar P, et al. Does integration of technology and customization of implants produce better outcomes in post-traumatic orbital reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024;82(7):806–819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.03.031
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eeva Kormi, Ville Männistö, Pilvi Mäntynen, Niilo Lusila, Juho Suojanen
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.
