ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
Realizing in-house algorithm-driven free fibula flap set up within 24 hours: a pilot study evaluating accuracy with open-source tools.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photon-Counting CT Angiography Enables Superior Preoperative Perforator Depiction for Fibular Transplant Surgery Requiring Less Contrast Agent Compared to Energy-Integrating CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A User-Friendly Software for Automated Knowledge-Based Virtual Surgical Planning in Mandibular Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Microvascular reconstruction in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a Europe-wide data collection.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Patient-Specific Condylar Positioning Devices and Manual Methods in Orthognathic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to critically evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of a time safing and cost-efficient open-source algorithm for in-house planning of mandibular reconstructions using the free osteocutaneous fibula graft. The evaluation focuses on quantifying anatomical accuracy and assessing the impact on ischemia time. Methods: A pilot study was conducted, including patients who underwent in-house planned computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of free fibula flaps between 2021 and 2023. Out of all patient cases, we included all with postoperative 3D imaging in the study. The study utilized open-source software tools for the planning step, and three-dimensional (3D) printing techniques. The Hausdorff distance and Dice coefficient metrics were used to evaluate the accuracy of the planning procedure. Results: The study assessed eight patients (five males and three females, mean age 61.75 ± 3.69 years) with different diagnoses such as osteoradionecrosis and oral squamous cell carcinoma. The average ischemia time was 68.38 ± 27.95 min. For the evaluation of preoperative planning vs. the postoperative outcome, the mean Hausdorff Distance was 1.22 ± 0.40. The Dice Coefficients yielded a mean of 0.77 ± 0.07, suggesting a satisfactory concordance between the planned and postoperative states. Dice Coefficient and Hausdorff Distance revealed significant correlations with ischemia time (Spearman's rho = -0.810, Conclusions: The in-house planning algorithm not only achieved high anatomical accuracy, as reflected by the Dice Coefficients and Hausdorff Distance metrics, but this accuracy also exhibited a significant correlation with reduced ischemia time. This underlines the critical role of meticulous planning in surgical outcomes. Additionally, the algorithm's open-source nature renders it cost-efficient, easy to learn, and broadly applicable, offering promising avenues for enhancing both healthcare affordability and accessibility.
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.