» Articles » PMID: 35743715

Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Fibula Free Flaps: A Retrospective Comparison of CAD/CAM Versus Conventional Technique

Overview
Journal J Pers Med
Date 2022 Jun 24
PMID 35743715
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

(1) Background: A decrease in operative time can not only improve patient outcomes through a reduction in the risk of developing complications but can also result in cost savings. The aim of this study is to determine whether there an intraoperative time gain can be achieved by using the preoperative virtual planning of mandibular reconstruction using a free fibula flap compared with freehand plate bending and osteotomies. (2) Methods: A retrospective comparative study was carried out in the Oral and Maxillofacial Department of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. The study compared 18 patients in the CAD/CAM group with 19 patients in the conventional freehand group. A comparison was made between the total surgical time, the comorbidities, and the hospital stay. The resource consumption was estimated using a cost analysis. (3) Results: Although CAD/CAM was a statistically more expensive procedure in the perioperative phase, no significant differences were observed in total health care costs between the two groups. There was a non-significant trend towards an increase in complications with conventional reconstruction plates compared to patient-specific plates (PSI). (4) Conclusions: CAD/CAM technology and a 3D printed cutting guide offer a significantly shorter surgical time, which is associated with a reduction in hospital days, PACU days, and complications. The cost of CAD/CAM technology is comparable to that of the conventional freehand technique.

Citing Articles

Cost Outcomes of Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Xiao J, Banyi N, Tran K, Prisman E Head Neck. 2024; 47(3):1037-1057.

PMID: 39737872 PMC: 11816551. DOI: 10.1002/hed.28035.


Bone reconstruction using CAD/CAM technology in head and neck surgical oncology. A narrative review of state of the art and aesthetic-functional outcomes.

Copelli C, Cacciatore F, Cocis S, Maglitto F, Barbara F, Iocca O Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2024; 44(Suppl. 1):S58-S66.

PMID: 38745517 PMC: 11098535. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-44-2024-N2819.


In-House 3D Printed Positioning and Cutting Guide System for Mandibular Reconstruction. Protocol and case report.

Rodriguez-Arias J, Moreiras-Sanchez A, Gutierrez-Venturini A, Pampin M, Gonzalez J, Moran M J Clin Exp Dent. 2024; 16(2):e229-e235.

PMID: 38496808 PMC: 10943673. DOI: 10.4317/jced.61278.


Full Digital Workflow for Mandibular Ameloblastoma Management: Showcase for Technical Description.

Abbate V, Togo G, Committeri U, Zarone F, Sammartino G, Valletta A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(17).

PMID: 37685596 PMC: 10488923. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175526.

References
1.
Nilsson J, Hindocha N, Thor A . Time matters - Differences between computer-assisted surgery and conventional planning in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020; 48(2):132-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.024. View

2.
Marchetti C, Bianchi A, Mazzoni S, Cipriani R, Campobassi A . Oromandibular reconstruction using a fibula osteocutaneous free flap: four different "preplating" techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 118(3):643-51. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000233211.54505.9a. View

3.
Gigliotti J, Madathil S, Makhoul N . Delays in oral cavity cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48(9):1131-1137. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.02.015. View

4.
Hidalgo D . Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989; 84(1):71-9. View

5.
Bao T, He J, Yu C, Zhao W, Lin Y, Wang H . Utilization of a pre-bent plate-positioning surgical guide system in precise mandibular reconstruction with a free fibula flap. Oral Oncol. 2017; 75:133-139. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.11.011. View