Table 3 Overview of studies evaluating surgical navigation for use in mandibular/maxillofacial surgeries.
From: Electromagnetic surgical navigation in patients undergoing mandibular surgery
Author | Year | Navigation | Number of patients | Phantom/model | Outcome | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hasan et al.10 | 2019 | Optical | 5 | – | 1.7 ± 0.8 mm, 5.4 ± 1.5° and 6.7 ± 4.6°, respectively | Difference in distance, pitch, and roll between planned resection plane and performed resection planes |
Naujokat et al.11 | 2017 | Optical | 6 | – | 1.52 mm | Mean difference between planned osteotomy line and performed osteotomy line |
Naujokat et al.11 | 2017 | Optical | – | 3 skull models | 1.03 mm (1), 0.98 mm (2) and 1,7 mm (3) | FRE: based on metal points on the mandibles (1), metal points on a splint based on the occlusal surface of the mandible teeth (2) and anatomical landmarks that were located interdental on the alveolar bone |
Shan et al.12 | 2016 | Optical | 20 | – | 79% < 1 mm; 87% < 2 mm; 92% < 3 mm | Difference between preoperative plan and postoperative outcome |
Lee et al.6 | 2019 | EM with real-time augmented model | 1 | – | 1.71 ± 0.63 mm | TRE measured on three condylar landmarks |
Berger et al.5 | 2018 | EM | 10 | – | No significant difference | Position of condyles after high oblique sagittal split osteotomy, manually or EM guided; no TRE reported |
Nova et al.2 | 2017 | EM | – | 6 plastic skull models | ± 2 mm | Displacement of the condyle between preoperative CT and postoperative CT |
Peacock et al.1 | 2015 | EM | – | Human cadavers and live minipig | < 2 mm | Differences between the navigation’s prediction of the location of the osteotomy and the virtual planning |
Bouchard et al.3 | 2012 | EM | – | 3 minipig cadavers | 2.35 ± 1.35 mm | Mean difference in width mandibular rami after osteotomy and in the 3D model |
Bouchard et al.3 | 2012 | EM | – | 1 dissected mandible | 2.10 ± 0.88 mm | TRE: The pencil tip was placed in different holes on the mandible and the difference between the actual and virtual location was measured in millimeters (n = 11 measurements) |
Seeberger et al.4 | 2012 | EM | – | Plastic skull phantom (maxilla) | 2.1 mm ± 0.68 | TRE |
The current study | 2019 | EM | 11 | 1.2 ± 1.1 mm 2.6 ± 1.5 mm 3.2 ± 1.1 mm | FRE TRE measured on cutting guide landmarks TRE measured on anatomical guide landmarks |
