Accuracy of Orbital Shape Reconstruction-Comparative Analysis of Errors in Implant Shape Versus Implant Positioning: A Cadaveric Study.

Abstract

<h4>Introduction</h4>Orbital blowout fractures are commonly reconstructed with implants shaped to repair orbital cavity defects, restore ocular position and projection, and correct diplopia. Orbital implant shaping has traditionally been performed manually by surgeons, with more recent use of computer-assisted design (CAD). Accuracy of implant placement is also key to reconstruction. This study compares the placement accuracy of orbital implants, testing the hypothesis that CAD-shaped implants indexed to patient anatomy will better restore orbit geometry compared with manually shaped implants and manually placed implants.<h4>Methods</h4>The placement accuracy of orbital implants was assessed within a cadaveric blowout fracture model (3 skulls, 6 orbits) via 3-dimensional CT analysis. Defects were repaired with 4 different techniques: manually placed-manually shaped composite (titanium-reinforced porous polyethylene), manually placed CAD composite, indexed placed CAD composite, and indexed placed CAD titanium mesh.<h4>Results</h4>Implant placement accuracy differed significantly with the implant preparation method ( P =0.01). Indexing significantly improved the placement accuracy ( P =0.002). Indexed placed titanium mesh CAD implants (1.42±0.33 mm) were positioned significantly closer to the intact surface versus manually placed-manually shaped composite implants (2.12±0.39 mm).<h4>Discussion</h4>Computer-assisted design implants indexed to patient geometry yielded average errors below the acceptable threshold (2 mm) for enophthalmos and diplopia. This study highlights the importance of adequately indexing CAD-designed implants to patient geometry to ensure accurate orbital reconstructions.