RESUMEN
Background@#Three-dimensional renderings of two-dimensional computed tomography data have allowed for more precise analysis in the craniofacial field. Design, engineering, architecture, and other industries have paved the way for the manipulation and printing of three-dimensional objects.The usual planning is only carried out based on the bony structures, often without taking into consideration the presence of soft tissues and soft structures. During our practice, we have found ourselves facing the challenge posed by these structures; the aim of this article is to discuss our experience in designing implants presenting our tips and tricks for a better planning leading to an easy and reliable positioning.Case presentationWe have retrieved all patients in 5 years among those who underwent computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing implant placement in the last 5 years in order to review the eventual problems and the solutions found.A total number of 25 patients were retrieved and, among them, 10 patients were selected, in which planning inaccuracy caused difficulties during implant placement and which then led to induced changes during the planning of similar cases or in which the problems were noted before or during the planning which led to changes in the plan to address those problems.Six of the selected cases were polyetheretherketone facial implants for the correction of residual deformities in malformed or deformed patients.One case was a delayed orbital reconstruction with a titanium implant.Two cases were titanium functional and anatomical reconstruction of the mandible in patients with failed post-oncological reconstructions.There was 1 case with a mandibular ramus complex and hard-to-treat fracture. @*Conclusions@#The planning of the implant mostly relies on hard tissue three-dimensional reconstruction, but it should not be limited at what is immediately evident. A surgeon’s clinical experience should always guide the process, with knowledge of the patient’s anatomy and evaluation of the quality and of the soft tissue response being taken into consideration. The implant should always be tailored not only based on the bone defect and evaluations but also using the patient’s previewed and actual anatomy, evaluating eventual interferences and pitfalls.
RESUMEN
Head and neck liposarcomas are rare entities accounting for less than 5% of all liposarcomas. The primary orbital location is even rarer, with about 40 cases described in the English literature. According with the widely accepted classification of Enzinger and Weis there are 5 histologic variants of liposarcomas: well differentiated, myxoid, dedifferentiated, round cell and pleomorphic. The first two are considered low-grade and display a favourable prognosis (>90% 5-year DSS and OS), whereas the dedifferentiated, round cell, and pleomorphic are defined high-grade and burdened with poorer prognosis (5-year DSS ranging 45-73%). Dedifferentiated liposarcomas (DDL) of the head and neck region are exceedingly rare, therefore there are scattered and contrasting data regarding their clinical history, treatment modality, and prognosis. We presented a case of DDL arising in the the left orbit (fourth case of primary orbital DDL described), free from disease after 5-year follow-up. Clinical history, treatment, and characteristics of the presented case were described and discussed in the light of how reported in the literature, in the attempt to bring further insight in the nature and management of this rare pathological entity.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was evaluate the morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvesting by comparison of 2 approaches: medial and intracortical. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between April 2006 and February 2010, 73 consecutive subjects underwent anterior iliac crest bone harvesting. The sample was divided in 2 groups: 37 subjects treated with the medial approach and 36 with the intracortical approach. Patients were monitored during their hospital stay, considering the postoperative complications, the analgesic requirements, resumption of the ambulation, and length of stay. Postoperative controls were performed at 7, 14, and 30 days 6 and 12 months after surgery. A questionnaire on patient's satisfaction and complaints was released. RESULTS: The 2 approaches resulted in significant statistical differences in 3 areas: the average time of operation, recovery of gait capabilities, and duration of the postsurgical pain were lower when intracortical approach was used. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The low postsurgical morbidity can be related to the minimal muscular detachment, and the risk of fracture is reduced. Bone wax is not necessary for the hemostasis. We consider intracortical approach to be ideal in the case of selected transversal maxillary atrophies.