Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Aided Orbital Reconstruction

  • Facial Trauma (R. Kellman, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Otorhinolaryngology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the adoption of facial fracture plating systems in the 1980s, orbital fracture and reconstruction techniques have continued to evolve. Over the past 10 years, the introduction of new computer-based applications (i.e., pre-surgical planning software, intraoperative navigation, 3D printing, patient-specific implants, and intraoperative imaging) has changed the way reconstructive surgeons approach these complex procedures. This chapter will review the current literature highlighting the most recent advances in computer-aided orbital reconstruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. • Novelli, G., et al., Virtual surgery simulation in orbital wall reconstruction: integration of surgical navigation and stereolithographic models. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2014;42(8): 2025–34. Good description of the techniques used in planning and registration for orbital reconstruction.

  2. Narayan R. Rapid prototyping of biomaterials: principles and applications. New York: Elsevier Science; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. • Strong EB, et al. Preformed vs intraoperative bending of titanium mesh for orbital reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):60–6. Good comparison of traditional vs computer-aided techniques for orbital reconstruction.

  4. Mehra P, et al. Use of 3-d stereolithographic models in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011;10(1):6–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Park SW, et al. Mirror-imaged rapid prototype skull model and pre-molded synthetic scaffold to achieve optimal orbital cavity reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(8):1540–53. A large series which nicely reviews the technique of template contouring for orbital reconstruction.

  6. Cui J, et al. Surgical planning, three-dimensional model surgery and preshaped implants in treatment of bilateral craniomaxillofacial post-traumatic deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(6):1138.e1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Metzger MC, et al. Anatomical 3-dimensional pre-bent titanium implant for orbital floor fractures. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(10):1863–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon CR, Susarla SM, Yaremchuk MJ. Quantitative assessment of medial orbit fracture repair using computer-designed anatomical plates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5):698e–705e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gander T, et al. Patient specific implants (PSI) in reconstruction of orbital floor and wall fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(1):126–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kozakiewicz M. Computer-aided orbital wall defects treatment by individual design ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(4):283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kozakiewicz M, et al. Technical concept of patient-specific, ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene orbital wall implant. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(4):282–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kozakiewicz M, Szymor P. Comparison of pre-bent titanium mesh versus polyethylene implants in patient specific orbital reconstructions. Head Face Med. 2013;9:32.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Metzger MC, et al. Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137(1):93–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. • Essig H, et al. Precision of posttraumatic primary orbital reconstruction using individually bent titanium mesh with and without navigation: a retrospective study. Head Face Med. 2013;9:18. Large case series and review of post-traumatic orbital reconstruction using intra-operative navigation and orbital implants with patient specific template contouring.

  15. Andrews BT, et al. Utilization of computed tomography image-guided navigation in orbit fracture repair. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(6):1389–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cai EZ, et al. Computer-assisted navigational surgery improves outcomes in orbital reconstructive surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(5):1567–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao L, Patel PK, Cohen M. Application of virtual surgical planning with computer assisted design and manufacturing technology to cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39(4):309–16.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim YH, et al. Correction of orbital wall fracture close to the optic canal using computer-assisted navigation surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(4):1118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaye DA, Tollefson TT, Strong E. USe of intraoperative computed tomography for maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(2):113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. • Stuck BA, Hulse R, Barth TJ. Intraoperative cone beam computed tomography in the management of facial fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(10):1171–5. Relatively large case series which reviews the use of intra-operative imaging for maxillofacial trauma.

  21. Wilde F, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Hout WM, et al. Intraoperative imaging for the repair of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(8):1918–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, 2521 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA

    Michael Kinzinger & E. Bradley Strong

Authors
  1. Michael Kinzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Bradley Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Bradley Strong.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Facial Trauma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinzinger, M., Strong, E.B. Computer-Aided Orbital Reconstruction. Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep 3, 221–225 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-015-0098-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40136-015-0098-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation