RESUMO
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) technology has become a standard manufacturing element in many industries and has gained significant interest in plastic surgery. The 3D scans are widely used for patient communication, virtual surgery planning, and intraoperative tool manufacturing, providing a more comprehensive view of procedures and their outcomes compared with 2D visualization. Methods: We evaluated the performance of six commercially available 3D scanners by acquiring 3D models of a human hand and a 3D-printed replica of a human hand. We performed objective comparisons between the 3D models of the replica using color mapping techniques. Moreover, we compared the results of the human hand 3D scans. Results: We achieved the highest precision with the Artec Space Spider 3D scanner (Artec 3D) when scanning the 3D-printed replica. The SD was ±0.05 mm, and the scan did not have major defects that needed manual correction. On the human hand scan, we achieved the best results using the Artec Eva (Artec 3D), the resulting scan was an accurate digital representation of the scanned human hand. Conclusions: In our study, the Artec Space Spider 3D scanner demonstrated superior precision when scanning a 3D-printed replica, deviating only slightly from the original data, making it an optimal choice for nonmoving objects such as casts or medical instruments. For scanning human hands, the Artec Eva 3D scanner exhibited the highest performance, offering accuracy comparable to the Artec Space Spider, but with the added benefit of being able to scan larger objects.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The current guidelines on injuries caused by animal bites recommend surgical debridement and antibiotic treatment. Bite wounds generally lead to high-risk infections due to deep skin lesions. However, bite wounds may differ dramatically in terms of depth and involvement of different anatomic structures. A prognostic classification regarding depth or severity is only available for facial injuries in paediatric patients, provided by Lackmann's score. In this study, we assessed prognostic factors and developed a prospective score for general animal bite injuries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis in patients sustaining animal bite injuries from 2007 to 2017. Patients were subdivided according to animal species, location of bite(s), type of treatment and medical care, admission, length of stay, need for revision, and spectrum of microorganisms. We established and verified a rating score ranging from grade I (superficial scratch) to grade Va (deep wound with bone involvement) and grade Vb (deep wound with joint involvement). RESULTS: This study included 567 patients with animal bite injuries, of which 51.7 % were caused by dogs, 39.2 % by cats and 4.1 % by wild animals. 75.7 % of injuries were located in the hands, 12.9 % in the arms, 5.1 % in the face and 5.3 % in other body parts. The most common microorganism was pasteurella, followed by staphylococci and other aerobic strains. Antibiotic treatment comprised Sultamicillin in 75 % of cases, cephalosporins in 10.2 %, Clindamycin in 7.6 % and other antibiotics in 5.1 % of cases.There was a significant correlation (p < 0.001) between animal species and presence of an infection, type of medical care, rating score and spectrum of microorganisms as well as between rating score and need for revision, duration of antibiotic treatment, mode of admission, treatment and medical care, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of the established rating score was verified. In addition, the study demonstrated that animal species are an important factor influencing treatment. Being effective against most of the identified microorganisms, Sultamicillin should be used as first-line antibiotic treatment.
