Prospects of Robot-Assisted Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibula Flap: Comparison with a Computer-Assisted Navigation System and Freehand Technique

Abstract

Background Function and aesthetics have a significant impact on the quality of life in patients undergoing mandibular reconstructive surgery, but achieving satisfactory results remain challenging. The aim of the study is to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of robot-assisted mandibular reconstruction with fibula flap in comparison to that with a computer-assisted navigation system and the freehand technique.

Methods Experimental procedures (15 phantom studies and 6 animal experiments) were performed with a custom three-arm robotic system automatically, under the guidance of a computer-assisted navigation system, and by the freehand technique, respectively. The accuracy of the reconstruction was assessed by comparison between the preoperative and postoperative three-dimensional surface virtual models.

Results All procedures were successfully performed. In the phantom study, the mean deviation of the fibula implant was 1.221, 1.581, and 2.313 mm, respectively, with the robotic system, the navigation system, and the freehand technique; in the animal experiment the corresponding figures were 1.7697, 1.7847, and 2.0815 mm, respectively. The mean deviation of the proximal mandibular ramus was 1.0420, 1.0532, 1.8800 mm with the robotic system, computer-assisted navigation system, and freehand technique, respectively, and the mean deviation of the distal mandibular segment was 1.1645, 2.7198, and 2.8445 mm, respectively.

Conclusions The robotic system is feasible, efficient, and reliable for mandibular reconstruction. The accuracy of the fibula implant orientation with the robotic system was comparable to that with navigation system and superior to that with the freehand technique.

Keywords

computer-assisted surgery - robot - mandibular reconstruction

• References

• 1 Kokosis G, Schmitz R, Powers DB, Erdmann D. Mandibular reconstruction using the free vascularized fibula graft: an overview of different modifications. Arch Plast Surg 2016; 43 (1) 3-9
• 2 Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG. Mandible reconstruction with microvascular surgery. Semin Surg Oncol 2000; 19 (3) 226-234
• 3 Metzler P, Geiger EJ, Alcon A, Ma X, Steinbacher DM. Three-dimensional virtual surgery accuracy for free fibula mandibular reconstruction: planned versus actual results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72 (12) 2601-2612
• 4 Tarsitano A, Ciocca L, Cipriani R, Scotti R, Marchetti C. Mandibular reconstruction using fibula free flap harvested using a customised cutting guide: how we do it. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2015; 35 (3) 198-201
• 5 Matros E, Santamaria E, Cordeiro PG. Standardized templates for shaping the fibula free flap in mandible reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (9) 619-622
• 6 Dérand P, Hirsch JM. Virtual bending of mandibular reconstruction plates using a computer-aided design. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67 (8) 1640-1643
• 7 Nijmeh AD, Goodger NM, Hawkes D, Edwards PJ, McGurk M. Image-guided navigation in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 43 (4) 294-302
• 8 Ewers R, Schicho K, Undt G , et al. Basic research and 12 years of clinical experience in computer-assisted navigation technology: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 34 (1) 1-8
• 9 Tarsitano A, Mazzoni S, Cipriani R, Scotti R, Marchetti C, Ciocca L. The CAD-CAM technique for mandibular reconstruction: an 18 patients oncological case-series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (7) 1460-1464
• 10 Matros E, Albornoz CR, Rensberger M, Weimer K, Garfein ES. Computer-assisted design and computer-assisted modeling technique optimization and advantages over traditional methods of osseous flap reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (5) 289-296
• 11 Taylor RH, Paul HA, Mittelstadt BD, Hanson W. An image-directed robotic system for precise orthopaedic surgery. Calixarenes Nanoworld 1994; 10 (3) 261-275
• 12 Kavanagh KT. Applications of image-directed robotics in otolaryngologic surgery. Laryngoscope 1994; 104 (3 Pt 1): 283-293
• 13 Lueth TC, Hein A, Albrecht J, Demirtas M. A surgical robot system for maxillofacial surgery. Paper presented at: IECON '98: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society; August 31–September 4, 1998; Aachen, Germany, 1998
• 14 De Ceulaer J, De Clercq C, Swennen GR. Robotic surgery in oral and maxillofacial, craniofacial and head and neck surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (11) 1311-1324
• 15 Engel D, Raczkowsky J, Worn H. A safe robot system for craniofacial surgery. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; May 21–26, 2001; Seoul, Korea, 2001
• 16 Boesecke R, Brief J, Raczkowsky J , et al. Robot assistant for dental implantology. Paper presented at: the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention; October 14–17, 2001; Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2001
• 17 Balasundaram I, Al-Hadad I, Parmar S. Recent advances in reconstructive oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 50 (8) 695-705
• 18 Lim SH, Kim MK, Kang SH. Precision of fibula positioning guide in mandibular reconstruction with a fibula graft. Head Face Med 2016; 12 (1) 7
• 19 Bell RB, Weimer KA, Dierks EJ, Buehler M, Lubek JE. Computer planning and intraoperative navigation for palatomaxillary and mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flaps. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (3) 724-732
• 20 de Almeida JR, Genden EM. Robotic assisted reconstruction of the oropharynx. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 20 (4) 237-245
• 21 Garfein ES, Greaney Jr PJ, Easterlin B, Schiff B, Smith RV. Transoral robotic reconstructive surgery reconstruction of a tongue base defect with a radial forearm flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (6) 2352-2354
• 22 Davies B. A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2000; 214 (1) 129-140
• 23 Korb W, Marmulla R, Raczkowsky J, Mühling J, Hassfeld S. Robots in the operating theatre—chances and challenges. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 33 (8) 721-732
• 24 Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguez y Baena F, Gomes P, Cobb J, Davies BL. The first clinical application of a “hands-on” robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 2001; 6 (6) 329-339
• 25 Maan ZN, Gibbins N, Al-Jabri T, D'Souza AR. The use of robotics in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: a systematic review. Am J Otolaryngol 2012; 33 (1) 137-146
• 26 Simorov A, Otte RS, Kopietz CM, Oleynikov D. Review of surgical robotics user interface: what is the best way to control robotic surgery?. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (8) 2117-2125
• 27 Wurm J, Dannenmann T, Bohr C, Iro H, Bumm K. Increased safety in robotic paranasal sinus and skull base surgery with redundant navigation and automated registration. Int J Med Robot 2005; 1 (3) 42-48
• 28 Camarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury Jr JK. Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 2004; 188 (4A, Suppl) 2S-15S
• 29 Wang Y, Duan X. Spatial registration for a three-arm robot assisted mandible reconstruction surgery. Math Probl Eng 2015; 2015 (1, part 2): 1-10
• 30 Luebbers HT, Messmer P, Obwegeser JA , et al. Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36 (2) 109-116
• 31 Widmann G, Stoffner R, Bale R. Errors and error management in image-guided craniomaxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107 (5) 701-715
• 32 Bao N, Chen Y, Yue Y , et al. Fiducial markers configuration optimization in image-guided surgery. Biomed Mater Eng 2014; 24 (6) 3361-3371
• 33 Schepers RH, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A , et al. Accuracy of fibula reconstruction using patient-specific CAD/CAM reconstruction plates and dental implants: A new modality for functional reconstruction of mandibular defects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (5) 649-657