眶底骨折:治疗与诊断--瑞士、德国和奥地利颌面外科的一项调查

Thomas Burger, Kathleen Fan, Johannes Brokmeier, Florian M. Thieringer, B. Berg
{"title":"眶底骨折:治疗与诊断--瑞士、德国和奥地利颌面外科的一项调查","authors":"Thomas Burger, Kathleen Fan, Johannes Brokmeier, Florian M. Thieringer, B. Berg","doi":"10.1177/19433875241245498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"N/A. This study investigated the different ways of orbital floor reconstruction with special focus on reconstruction materials, imaging modalities (intra-/ post-operative), 3D printing and navigation. The heads of all governmental-run or associated cranio-maxillofacial surgery units in Switzerland, Austria and Germany were asked in person or received an email link for an online survey with 12 questions. The return rate was 57%. The most often selected number of reconstructions was between 10 and 50 per year. Resorbable polydioxanone (PDS) foils (41%) and titanium mesh (18 %) were most often used to reconstruct the orbital floor. 31% use 3D Navigation intraoperative. Post-operative imaging was most often performed with CBCT (34.5%) in patients without complications, whereas CT scans were most often performed (63.3%) in patients with persisting complications. In total, 27% stated that they never use preformed orbital plates, and the remaining units use them more or less regularly. 48% have access to a 3D printer and 75% of the respondents use patient specific implants. The majority of the participating units prefer to use resorbable material for the reconstruction of the orbital floor defects. 3D printing facilities are not available in the majority of units, but it can be expected that the number of units with 3D printing facilities will rise in the near future.","PeriodicalId":505353,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Orbital Floor Fractures: Treatment and Diagnostics – A Survey Among Swiss, German and Austrian Maxillofacial Units\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Burger, Kathleen Fan, Johannes Brokmeier, Florian M. Thieringer, B. Berg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875241245498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"N/A. This study investigated the different ways of orbital floor reconstruction with special focus on reconstruction materials, imaging modalities (intra-/ post-operative), 3D printing and navigation. The heads of all governmental-run or associated cranio-maxillofacial surgery units in Switzerland, Austria and Germany were asked in person or received an email link for an online survey with 12 questions. The return rate was 57%. The most often selected number of reconstructions was between 10 and 50 per year. Resorbable polydioxanone (PDS) foils (41%) and titanium mesh (18 %) were most often used to reconstruct the orbital floor. 31% use 3D Navigation intraoperative. Post-operative imaging was most often performed with CBCT (34.5%) in patients without complications, whereas CT scans were most often performed (63.3%) in patients with persisting complications. In total, 27% stated that they never use preformed orbital plates, and the remaining units use them more or less regularly. 48% have access to a 3D printer and 75% of the respondents use patient specific implants. The majority of the participating units prefer to use resorbable material for the reconstruction of the orbital floor defects. 3D printing facilities are not available in the majority of units, but it can be expected that the number of units with 3D printing facilities will rise in the near future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":\" 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875241245498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875241245498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不适用。本研究调查了眶底重建的不同方法,特别关注重建材料、成像模式(术中/术后)、3D打印和导航。瑞士、奥地利和德国所有政府办或相关颅颌面外科单位的负责人都亲自接受了问卷调查,或收到了一份包含12个问题的在线调查电子邮件链接。回收率为 57%。最常选择的重建数量为每年 10 至 50 例。可吸收聚二氧酮(PDS)箔(41%)和钛网(18%)最常用于重建眶底。31%在术中使用三维导航。无并发症的患者最常使用 CBCT 进行术后成像(34.5%),而有持续并发症的患者最常进行 CT 扫描(63.3%)。共有 27% 的单位表示从不使用预制眶板,其余单位或多或少会定期使用。48%的受访者可以使用 3D 打印机,75%的受访者使用针对患者的植入物。大多数参与单位倾向于使用可吸收材料重建眶底缺损。大多数单位都没有三维打印设备,但可以预见的是,在不久的将来,拥有三维打印设备的单位数量将会增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Orbital Floor Fractures: Treatment and Diagnostics – A Survey Among Swiss, German and Austrian Maxillofacial Units
N/A. This study investigated the different ways of orbital floor reconstruction with special focus on reconstruction materials, imaging modalities (intra-/ post-operative), 3D printing and navigation. The heads of all governmental-run or associated cranio-maxillofacial surgery units in Switzerland, Austria and Germany were asked in person or received an email link for an online survey with 12 questions. The return rate was 57%. The most often selected number of reconstructions was between 10 and 50 per year. Resorbable polydioxanone (PDS) foils (41%) and titanium mesh (18 %) were most often used to reconstruct the orbital floor. 31% use 3D Navigation intraoperative. Post-operative imaging was most often performed with CBCT (34.5%) in patients without complications, whereas CT scans were most often performed (63.3%) in patients with persisting complications. In total, 27% stated that they never use preformed orbital plates, and the remaining units use them more or less regularly. 48% have access to a 3D printer and 75% of the respondents use patient specific implants. The majority of the participating units prefer to use resorbable material for the reconstruction of the orbital floor defects. 3D printing facilities are not available in the majority of units, but it can be expected that the number of units with 3D printing facilities will rise in the near future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信