ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
On the use of intraoperative 3D-RX C-arm imaging in orthognathic surgery: a prospective non-consecutive case series study.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Current State of Intraoperative Imaging in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextSegment and osteosynthesis malposition resulting in patients' complaints (mainly about asymmetries) are encountered in orthofacial/orthognathic surgery. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND
settingWe planned to investigate the usefulness of intraoperative three-dimensional (3D) imaging concerning positioning and fixation of bone segments and osteosynthesis in orthognathic/orthofacial surgery. We performed a prospective study of non-consecutive cases. All patients receiving a bimaxillary osteotomy, genioplasty, and their combinations were included in the study from May 2016 to May 2020. Unilateral and bilateral sagittal split osteotomies were excluded. There were no gender and age limitations. All were intraoperatively examined using the BV Pulsera 3D-RX System (Philips Medical, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The outcome variables were the percentage of revisions of segment positioning and osteosynthesis. Predictor variables were age, gender, type of surgery, timing (pre- and post-imaging), and surgeon experience (senior vs assistant).
resultsForty female and twenty-two male patients were included (mean age 25.25 years ± 7.52 and 29.1 years ± 12.6 respectively). We evaluated 27 genioplasties and 34 Le Fort "type-I" osteotomies. Indications for segment repositioning and redo-osteosynthesis increased after intraoperative imaging as compared to operator's clinical judgment before intraoperative imaging (95% confidence interval; p < .001 and p = .002 respectively).
conclusionSuboptimal positioning and fixation of bone segments or osteosynthesis were more apparent with 3D imaging. In addition, some satisfactory cases were also revised for an optimal outcome. As a result, surgeons were prompted to more revisions than judged necessary without intraoperative imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.