ReviewHNO2018
[Reconstructive orbital surgery].
Review in HNO, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn complex orbital reconstructions ideal positioning of the bony buttress and surrounding soft tissue is a prerequisite for an aesthetic and functional result. The use of computer-assisted surgery can support the surgeon before and during the reconstruction procedure and facilitate quality control processes. This is illustrated using three clinical examples. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe areas of interest (bony defect areas, surrounding tissues) are segmented in a 3D image series. In most cases, the contralateral non-affected side can serve as the reference in virtual reconstruction. The virtual model obtained can now be used for the manufacturing of patient specific models and implants, as well as for intraoperative navigation or direct quality control with the use of intraoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
resultsFor the reconstruction of primary and secondary traumatic defects as well as for congenital malformations or neoplastic diseases, the presented workflow can be used. Preoperative virtual visualization, patient specific reconstruction and direct quality control using intraoperative CBCT ensure that the preoperatively planned result can be achieved. Together with the interplay of hard and soft tissue the best possible results can be achieved.
conclusionComputer-assisted surgery has been continuously further developed over the last two decades and is currently used in the clinical routine. Patient specific implants in combination with the use of direct intraoperative quality control facilitate the reconstruction of complex orbital injuries and defects and enable the ideal reconstruction from both aesthetic and functional aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30327822What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.