1
|
Systermans S, Cobraiville E, Camby S, Meyer C, Louvrier A, Lie SA, Schouman T, Siciliano S, Beckers O, Poulet V, Ullmann N, Nolens G, Biscaccianti V, Nizet JL, Hascoët JY, Gilon Y, Vidal L. An innovative 3D hydroxyapatite patient-specific implant for maxillofacial bone reconstruction: A case series of 13 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2024; 52:420-431. [PMID: 38461138 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2024.02.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Revised: 11/28/2023] [Accepted: 02/17/2024] [Indexed: 03/11/2024] Open
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate and discuss the use of an innovative PSI made of porous hydroxyapatite, with interconnected porosity promoting osteointegration, called MyBone Custom® implant (MBCI), for maxillofacial bone reconstruction. A multicentric cohort of 13 patients underwent maxillofacial bone reconstruction surgery using MBCIs for various applications, from genioplasty to orbital floor reconstruction, including zygomatic and mandibular bone reconstruction, both for segmental defects and bone augmentation. The mean follow-up period was 9 months (1-22 months). No infections, displacements, or postoperative fractures were reported. Perioperative modifications of the MBCIs were possible when necessary. Additionally, surgeons reported significant time saved during surgery. For patients with postoperative CT scans, osteointegration signs were visible at the 6-month postoperative follow-up control, and continuous osteointegration was observed after 1 year. The advantages and disadvantages compared with current techniques used are discussed. MBCIs offer new bone reconstruction possibilities with long-term perspectives, while precluding the drawbacks of titanium and PEEK. The low level of postoperative complications associated with the high osteointegration potential of MBCIs paves the way to more extensive use of this new hydroxyapatite PSI in maxillofacial bone reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Systermans
- Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, ZOL Genk, Genk, Belgium
| | | | - Séverine Camby
- Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Christophe Meyer
- Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale, Stomatologie et Odontologie Hospitalière, CHU, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
| | - Aurélien Louvrier
- Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale, Stomatologie et Odontologie Hospitalière, CHU, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
| | - Suen An Lie
- Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Thomas Schouman
- Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles Foix, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Sergio Siciliano
- Department of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinique Sainte Elisabeth, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Olivier Beckers
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, ZOL Genk, Genk, Belgium
| | - Vinciane Poulet
- Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Toulouse Purpan University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Nicolas Ullmann
- Service de Chirurgie Maxillo-faciale et Stomatologie, Hôpital de Villeneuve Saint Georges, France
| | | | - Vincent Biscaccianti
- Research Institute of Civil Engineering and Mechanics (GeM), CNRS, Nantes, France
| | - Jean-Luc Nizet
- Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Jean-Yves Hascoët
- Research Institute of Civil Engineering and Mechanics (GeM), CNRS, Nantes, France
| | - Yves Gilon
- Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, CHU, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Luciano Vidal
- Research Institute of Civil Engineering and Mechanics (GeM), CNRS, Nantes, France; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Clinique Bretéché - ELSAN, Nantes, France.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gallo L, Kim P, Yuan M, Gallo M, Thoma A, Voineskos SH, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Klassen AF. Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology. Aesthet Surg J 2023; 43:NP674-NP686. [PMID: 37162009 DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjad141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Revised: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM. OBJECTIVES This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature. METHODS A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis. RESULTS There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.
Collapse
|
3
|
Wu Y, Liu J, Kang L, Tian J, Zhang X, Hu J, Huang Y, Liu F, Wang H, Wu Z. An overview of 3D printed metal implants in orthopedic applications: Present and future perspectives. Heliyon 2023; 9:e17718. [PMID: 37456029 PMCID: PMC10344715 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
With the ability to produce components with complex and precise structures, additive manufacturing or 3D printing techniques are now widely applied in both industry and consumer markets. The emergence of tissue engineering has facilitated the application of 3D printing in the field of biomedical implants. 3D printed implants with proper structural design can not only eliminate the stress shielding effect but also improve in vivo biocompatibility and functionality. By combining medical images derived from technologies such as X-ray scanning, CT, MRI, or ultrasonic scanning, 3D printing can be used to create patient-specific implants with almost the same anatomical structures as the injured tissues. Numerous clinical trials have already been conducted with customized implants. However, the limited availability of raw materials for printing and a lack of guidance from related regulations or laws may impede the development of 3D printing in medical implants. This review provides information on the current state of 3D printing techniques in orthopedic implant applications. The current challenges and future perspectives are also included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuanhao Wu
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Jieying Liu
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Lin Kang
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Jingjing Tian
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Xueyi Zhang
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Jin Hu
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Yue Huang
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Fuze Liu
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Hai Wang
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Zhihong Wu
- Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory for Genetic Research of Bone and Joint Disease, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ottenhof MJ, Veldhuizen IJ, Hensbergen LJV, Blankensteijn LL, Bramer W, Lei BV, Hoogbergen MM, Hulst RRWJ, Sidey-Gibbons CJ. The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46:2769-2780. [PMID: 35764813 PMCID: PMC9729314 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-02974-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures. METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded. RESULTS Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas. DISCUSSION The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maarten J Ottenhof
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value & Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Inge J Veldhuizen
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Lusanne J V Hensbergen
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Louise L Blankensteijn
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Wichor Bramer
- Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Berend Vd Lei
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University and University Medical School of Groningen and Bey Bergman Clinics, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten M Hoogbergen
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - René R W J Hulst
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Chris J Sidey-Gibbons
- Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value & Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Psychometric and Perceptometric Comparisons of the Perspectives of Orthodontists, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and Laypeople of Different Ages and Sexes towards Beauty of Female Jaw Angles (Intergonial Widths and Gonial Heights) on Frontal and Three-Quarter Views. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2022; 2022:2595662. [PMID: 36398071 PMCID: PMC9666021 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2595662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Revised: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 10/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Objectives The jaw angle plays an important role in facial beauty. Therefore, this study is aimed at comparatively determining the range of most attractive female intergonial widths and gonial heights on Perceptometric frontal-view and three-quarter-view images, from the perspective of orthodontists, oral maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons, and laypeople of different ages and sexes. Methods This prospective multivariate Perceptometric study was performed on 4191 esthetic scores given by 127 individuals to 33 Perceptometric face images. Frontal view and three-quarter-view photographs of a normal young woman were modified by image editing software to create two Perceptometric sets, one for the 24 gradual changes of intergonial width on the frontal view, and the other for the 9 vertical changes of the jaw angle on the three-quarter view. An online questionnaire was designed including 24 frontal and 9 oblique view photographs. The questionnaires' internal consistencies were almost perfect. Enrolled were 127 raters, including 33 orthodontists, 32 OMF surgeons, and 62 laypeople. The esthetics of different images were compared across different professions, across different ages, and between the sexes using 2-way MANCOVA, ANCOVA, and Bonferroni; the zones of esthetic jaw angles and also the sensitivity of judges to Perceptometric anatomical changes were assessed using 2-way RM-ANCOVA and Bonferroni (α = 0.05, α = 0.0056, α = 0.0021, and β = 0.05). Results Orthodontists and surgeons gave the highest attractiveness scores to intergonial: interzygomatic ratio of 72.53%, while the best ratio was 74.45% for the laypeople. The range of beautiful intergonial is as follows: interzygomatic ratio was 72.53% to 86.03%. OMF surgeons and orthodontists gave the highest score to a gonial height of 4.5 mm above the mouth corner, while the laypeople gave the highest score to the gonial height of 4.5 mm below the mouth corner. The range of beautiful gonial height was from 4.5 mm above the mouth corner to 9 mm below the mouth corner. The education of observers may affect their perception of beauty; orthodontists tended differ from laypeople, overall and also specifically in the case of the highly attractive frontal images concerning the intergonial width changes. However, no such differences were detected between surgeons with orthodontists or laypeople. Although age did not affect the overall esthetic scores, it did affect the sensitivity of the judges to the anatomic changes. So did expertise, i.e., the expertise of judges affected their sensitivity to anatomical changes; orthodontists showed steeper slopes of esthetic preference alterations to anatomical changes, while laypeople had the gentlest slope of preference changes. Judges' sex did not affect either their overall esthetic preferences or their sensitivity to anatomic changes. Conclusion Narrower female jaw angles and jaw angles that are vertically close to the level of the mouth corner may be unanimously more desirable. Thus, treatments aiming at widening the jaw angle of a woman or lowering it should be discouraged, at least in Persians. Orthodontists, but not surgeons, are more sensitive than laypeople to anatomic changes of the jaw angle. The judges' age can affect this perceptive sensitivity, but their sex cannot.
Collapse
|