Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models

The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruct...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Guido R. Sigron [verfasserIn] Marina Barba [verfasserIn] Frédérique Chammartin [verfasserIn] Bilal Msallem [verfasserIn] Britt-Isabelle Berg [verfasserIn] Florian M. Thieringer [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Clinical Medicine - MDPI AG, 2013, 10(2021), 16, p 3509
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:10 ; year:2021 ; number:16, p 3509

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/jcm10163509

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ049117610

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ049117610
003	DE-627
005	20240412163438.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/jcm10163509 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ049117610
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Guido R. Sigron \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.
650		4	\|a orbital fracture
650		4	\|a blow-out fracture
650		4	\|a orbital reconstruction
650		4	\|a functional outcome
650		4	\|a patient-specific implant
650		4	\|a printed anatomical model
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Marina Barba \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Frédérique Chammartin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Bilal Msallem \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Britt-Isabelle Berg \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Florian M. Thieringer \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Clinical Medicine \|d MDPI AG, 2013 \|g 10(2021), 16, p 3509 \|w (DE-627)718632478 \|w (DE-600)2662592-1 \|x 20770383 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:10 \|g year:2021 \|g number:16, p 3509
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 10 \|j 2021 \|e 16, p 3509

Indexfelder

author_variant	g r s grs m b mb f c fc b m bm b i b bib f m t fmt
matchkey_str	article:20770383:2021----::ucinlncseiotoefercntutooioaeuiaeaobtllofatrslwufatrsihnwtoth
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.3390/jcm10163509 doi (DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Guido R. Sigron verfasserin aut Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits. orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R Marina Barba verfasserin aut Frédérique Chammartin verfasserin aut Bilal Msallem verfasserin aut Britt-Isabelle Berg verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 16, p 3509 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 16, p 3509
spelling	10.3390/jcm10163509 doi (DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Guido R. Sigron verfasserin aut Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits. orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R Marina Barba verfasserin aut Frédérique Chammartin verfasserin aut Bilal Msallem verfasserin aut Britt-Isabelle Berg verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 16, p 3509 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 16, p 3509
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/jcm10163509 doi (DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Guido R. Sigron verfasserin aut Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits. orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R Marina Barba verfasserin aut Frédérique Chammartin verfasserin aut Bilal Msallem verfasserin aut Britt-Isabelle Berg verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 16, p 3509 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 16, p 3509
allfieldsGer	10.3390/jcm10163509 doi (DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Guido R. Sigron verfasserin aut Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits. orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R Marina Barba verfasserin aut Frédérique Chammartin verfasserin aut Bilal Msallem verfasserin aut Britt-Isabelle Berg verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 16, p 3509 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 16, p 3509
allfieldsSound	10.3390/jcm10163509 doi (DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Guido R. Sigron verfasserin aut Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits. orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R Marina Barba verfasserin aut Frédérique Chammartin verfasserin aut Bilal Msallem verfasserin aut Britt-Isabelle Berg verfasserin aut Florian M. Thieringer verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical Medicine MDPI AG, 2013 10(2021), 16, p 3509 (DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1 20770383 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 16, p 3509
language	English
source	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 10(2021), 16, p 3509 volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509
sourceStr	In Journal of Clinical Medicine 10(2021), 16, p 3509 volume:10 year:2021 number:16, p 3509
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Guido R. Sigron @@aut@@ Marina Barba @@aut@@ Frédérique Chammartin @@aut@@ Bilal Msallem @@aut@@ Britt-Isabelle Berg @@aut@@ Florian M. Thieringer @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	718632478
id	DOAJ049117610
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ049117610</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412163438.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm10163509</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ049117610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guido R. Sigron</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">orbital fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">blow-out fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">orbital reconstruction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">functional outcome</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient-specific implant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">printed anatomical model</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marina Barba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Frédérique Chammartin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bilal Msallem</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Britt-Isabelle Berg</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian M. Thieringer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 16, p 3509</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:16, p 3509</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">16, p 3509</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Guido R. Sigron
spellingShingle	Guido R. Sigron misc orbital fracture misc blow-out fracture misc orbital reconstruction misc functional outcome misc patient-specific implant misc printed anatomical model misc Medicine misc R Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
authorStr	Guido R. Sigron
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)718632478
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20770383
topic_title	Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models orbital fracture blow-out fracture orbital reconstruction functional outcome patient-specific implant printed anatomical model
topic	misc orbital fracture misc blow-out fracture misc orbital reconstruction misc functional outcome misc patient-specific implant misc printed anatomical model misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc orbital fracture misc blow-out fracture misc orbital reconstruction misc functional outcome misc patient-specific implant misc printed anatomical model misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc orbital fracture misc blow-out fracture misc orbital reconstruction misc functional outcome misc patient-specific implant misc printed anatomical model misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	718632478
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Clinical Medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)718632478 (DE-600)2662592-1
title	Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ049117610 (DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451
title_full	Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
author_sort	Guido R. Sigron
journal	Journal of Clinical Medicine
journalStr	Journal of Clinical Medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Guido R. Sigron Marina Barba Frédérique Chammartin Bilal Msallem Britt-Isabelle Berg Florian M. Thieringer
container_volume	10
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Guido R. Sigron
doi_str_mv	10.3390/jcm10163509
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	functional and cosmetic outcome after reconstruction of isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures (blow-out fractures) with and without the support of 3d-printed orbital anatomical models
title_auth	Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
abstract	The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.
abstractGer	The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.
abstract_unstemmed	The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	16, p 3509
title_short	Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509 https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451 https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509 https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383
remote_bool	true
author2	Marina Barba Frédérique Chammartin Bilal Msallem Britt-Isabelle Berg Florian M. Thieringer
author2Str	Marina Barba Frédérique Chammartin Bilal Msallem Britt-Isabelle Berg Florian M. Thieringer
ppnlink	718632478
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/jcm10163509
up_date	2024-07-03T21:32:07.959Z
_version_	1803595104086130688
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ049117610</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412163438.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/jcm10163509</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ049117610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guido R. Sigron</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The present study aimed to analyze if a preformed “hybrid” patient-specific orbital mesh provides a more accurate reconstruction of the orbital floor and a better functional outcome than a standardized, intraoperatively adapted titanium implant. Thirty patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction for isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures between May 2016 and November 2018 were included in this study. Of these patients, 13 were treated conventionally by intraoperative adjustment of a standardized titanium mesh based on assessing the fracture’s shape and extent. For the other 17 patients, an individual three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the orbit was fabricated with an in-house 3D-printer. This model was used as a template to create a so-called “hybrid” patient-specific titanium implant by preforming the titanium mesh before surgery. The functional and cosmetic outcome in terms of diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and sensory disturbance trended better when “hybrid” patient-specific titanium meshes were used but with statistically non-significant differences. The 3D-printed anatomical models mirroring the unaffected orbit did not delay the surgery’s timepoint. Nonetheless, it significantly reduced the surgery duration compared to the traditional method (58.9 (SD: 20.1) min versus 94.8 (SD: 33.0) min, <i<p</i<-value = 0.003). This study shows that using 3D-printed anatomical models as a supporting tool allows precise and less time-consuming orbital reconstructions with clinical benefits.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">orbital fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">blow-out fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">orbital reconstruction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">functional outcome</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient-specific implant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">printed anatomical model</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marina Barba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Frédérique Chammartin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bilal Msallem</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Britt-Isabelle Berg</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Florian M. Thieringer</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 16, p 3509</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)718632478</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2662592-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20770383</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:16, p 3509</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163509</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/71bd1756e46747b1a1d1e5cd7e82c451</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3509</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">16, p 3509</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399906

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Functional and Cosmetic Outcome after Reconstruction of Isolated, Unilateral Orbital Floor Fractures (Blow-Out Fractures) with and without the Support of 3D-Printed Orbital Anatomical Models

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?