Page 73 - Advanced concepts in orbital wall fractures

The intersurgeon repeatability in the preoperative planning group (between LD and PG) was high for pitch (ICC 0.89; CI 0.62-0.97) and yaw (ICC 0.65; CI 0.08-0.90) and low for translation (ICC 0.07; CI -0.56-0.65) and roll (ICC 0.39; CI -0.28-0.80).
Table 1 Intersurgeon and intrasurgeon repeatability (ICC + 95 % CI).
Preoperative planning
Without planning
With planning
Intra
Translation 0.69 (0.11-0.92)
Pitch 0.25 (-0.45-0.76)
Yaw 0.53 (-0.15-0.87)
Roll 0.74 (0.21-0.94)
Inter
0.32 (-0.35-0.78)
0.07 (-0.56-0.64)
0.39 (-0.28-0.80)
0.60 (-0.01-0.88)
Intra
0.80 (0.33-0.95)
0.64 (0.01-0.90)
0.47 (-0.24-0.85)
0.86 (0.49-0.97)
Inter
0.07 (-0.56-0.65)
0.89 (0.62-0.97)
0.65
(0.08-0.90) C
0.39 4 (-0.28-0.80)
Preoperative planning versus no preoperative planning
The absolute implant position of the group with preoperative virtual planning showed a significant (p<0.05) improvement for translation (2.6 mm; SD 1.7 mm), yaw (7.2°; SD 4.4°), and roll (4.8°; SD 3.1°) compared to the group without preoperative planning (Table 2). The variation in pitch was not significant between both groups.
Table 2 Absolute implant position with and without preoperative planning.
Mean
Translation 5.0 mm Pitch 2.5° Yaw 18.6° Roll 11.1°
SD
2.2 mm 2.1° 9.5° 7.3°
Mean
2.6 mm 2.0° 7.2° 4.8°
p value
1.7 mm
1.4° 0.29 4.4° <0.05 3.1° <0.05
Without planning
With planning
SD
<0.05
In Fig. 2a and Fig. 3a, the cranial and frontal view of the average implant position is illustrated including two defined points (blue square and the intersection of the two lines). In Fig. 2b and Fig. 3b, those points are illustrated in plots for all implants. The dotted and solid circles represent the 95 % confidence interval.
71