Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base
DOI: 10.1055/a-2321-0223
Original Article

Efficacy of Three-Dimensional Printing in the Management of Frontal Bone Trauma

Mohamed Kassem
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
,
Mahmoud Abd Hagras
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
,
Mohamed Nasser Elsheikh
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
,
Fathhe Ali Erfan
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
,
Mohamed Amer
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) trauma surgery is difficult because of its unique architecture and vast range of injuries in the head and neck area. This study sought to determine the potential of employing preoperative three-dimensional (3D)-printed models to improve frontal fracture healing outcomes.

Methods This prospective cohort clinical trial involved 20 patients who were surgically fitted and had a frontal bone fracture, as evidenced by computed tomography. The patients were separated into two groups: Group A: patients with frontal bone trauma reduced using 3D printing; and Group B: patients with frontal bone trauma reduced without 3D printing.

Results Compared to Group B, Group A had a considerably shorter operational time (p < 0.001). The esthetic results, complications, and functional outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. All patients in Groups A and B underwent accurate radiographic evaluations (correct placement of the titanium mesh).

Conclusion 3D printing in preoperative planning improves frontal fracture repair with respect to operative length but does not reduce intraoperative blood loss or improve postoperative function compared with normal management.

Keywords

3D printing - craniomaxillofacial - CT scan - Freihofer - frontal bone trauma

Authors' Contributions

M.K.: methodology conceptualization, formal analysis, data curation, and writing—review and editing; M.A.H.: conceptualization, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, supervision, and writing—review and editing; M.N.E.: methodology, supervision, and roles/writing. F.A.E.: formal analysis, validation, data curation, visualization, data software, writing—review and editing, and supervision. M.A.: data software, writing—review and editing, and supervision. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.


Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request.


Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.




Publication History

Received: 19 March 2024

Accepted: 23 April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 May 2024

Article published online:
24 May 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rachmiel A, Shilo D, Blanc O, Emodi O. Reconstruction of complex mandibular defects using integrated dental custom-made titanium implants. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55 (04) 425-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Guy WM, Brissett AE. Contemporary management of traumatic fractures of the frontal sinus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2013; 46 (05) 733-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hollier Jr LH, Sharabi SE, Koshy JC, Stal S. Facial trauma: general principles of management. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (04) 1051-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rodriguez ED, Stanwix MG, Nam AJ. et al. Twenty-six-year experience treating frontal sinus fractures: a novel algorithm based on anatomical fracture pattern and failure of conventional techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (06) 1850-1866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Oh JH. Recent advances in the reconstruction of cranio-maxillofacial defects using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 40 (01) 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Owusu JA, Boahene K. Update of patient-specific maxillofacial implant. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 23 (04) 261-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jansen J, Schreurs R, Dubois L, Maal TJJ, Gooris PJJ, Becking AG. The advantages of advanced computer-assisted diagnostics and three-dimensional preoperative planning on implant position in orbital reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46 (04) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Matias M, Zenha H, Costa H. Three-dimensional printing: custom-made implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstructive surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2017; 10 (02) 89-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lynn AQ, Pflibsen LR, Smith AA, Rebecca AM, Teven CM. Three-dimensional printing in plastic surgery: current applications, future directions, and ethical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (03) e3465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heron MJ, Zhu KJ, Yusuf CT. et al. Three-dimensional printing for craniomaxillofacial surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of applications and logistical outcomes. FACE 2023; 4: 160-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Assari A. Usability of three-dimensional printing in maxillofacial surgery: a narrative review. Open Dent J 2023; 17: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Levesque JN, Shah A, Ekhtiari S, Yan JR, Thornley P, Williams DS. Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: a scoping review. EFORT Open Rev 2020; 5 (07) 430-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Morgan C, Khatri C, Hanna SA, Ashrafian H, Sarraf KM. Use of three-dimensional printing in preoperative planning in orthopaedic trauma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Orthop 2020; 11 (01) 57-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen C, Cai L, Zheng W, Wang J, Guo X, Chen H. The efficacy of using 3D printing models in the treatment of fractures: a randomised clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20 (01) 65-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wood L, Ahmed Z. Does using 3D printed models for preoperative planning improve surgical outcomes of foot and ankle fracture fixation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 2022: 25-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zheng W, Tao Z, Lou Y. et al. Comparison of the conventional surgery and the surgery assisted by 3d printing technology in the treatment of calcaneal fractures. J Invest Surg 2018; 31 (06) 557-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dai G, Shao Z, Weng Q, Zheng Y, Hong J, Lu X. Percutaneous reduction, cannulated screw fixation and calcium sulfate cement grafting assisted by 3D printing technology in the treatment of calcaneal fractures. J Orthop Sci 2021; 26 (04) 636-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yammine K, Karbala J, Maalouf A, Daher J, Assi C. Clinical outcomes of the use of 3D printing models in fracture management: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 48 (05) 3479-3491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yang S, Lin H, Luo C. Meta-analysis of 3d printing applications in traumatic fractures. Front Surg 2021; 8: 696391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim JH, Lee CR, Oh DY, Jun Y-J, Moon S-H. Comparison of efficacy between three-dimensional printing and manual-bending implants for inferomedial orbital fracture: a retrospective study. Appl Sci (Basel) 2021; 11: 71-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Guest W, Forbes D, Schlosser C, Yip S, Coope R, Chew J. Imaging-based 3-dimensional printing for improved maxillofacial presurgical planning: a single center case series. Can Assoc Radiol J 2019; 70 (01) 74-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar