Accuracy of computer-assisted surgery in mandibular reconstruction: A systematic review

• Published in: Oral oncology 2018-09, Vol.84, p.52-60
• Main Authors: van Baar, Gustaaf J.C., Forouzanfar, Tymour, Liberton, Niels P.T.J., Winters, Henri A.H., Leusink, Frank K.J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Computer-aided design; Computer-aided manufacturing; Computer-assisted; Data accuracy; Free tissue flaps; Mandibular reconstruction; Oral cancer; Printing; Software; Surgery; Three-dimensional
• ISSN: 1368-8375; 1879-0593
• DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.07.004

•Planning and evaluation methods of mandibular reconstructions performed with CAS were reviewed.•Accuracy deviations ranged between 0 mm and 12.5 mm and between 0.9° and 17.5°.•Due to heterogeneity in planning and evaluation methodologies, meta-analysis was not performed.•A guideline to create uniformity in planning and evaluation methods needs to be considered. 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.