Comparative Study between Patients' Satisfaction after Reconstructed Auricle Using 2D and 3D Models | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | ||||
| Article 10, Volume 46, Issue 4, November 2022, Page 389-395 PDF (6.36 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Research article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejprs.2022.269082 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Mohamed M Abdel Halim* ; Fady Rezk Shafik  ; Ahmed El Shahat; Ahmed M Gad
| ||||
| The Department of Plastic, Burn and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Microtia is a rare and severe craniofacial abnormality that impairs newborns' appearance. The most favored treatment for microtia is autologous ear reconstruction. It is essential for the reconstruction process that surgeons provide templates of their patients' normal auricles to be shaped. Traditionally, 2D models have been utilized everywhere. The rising use of 3D printing in the medical field has led to several improvements, especially the development of patient-specific models based on actual imaging data. Objectives: This study compared the satisfaction of patients regarding the aesthetic outcomes between 2D & 3D modelling. Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 44 patients; with unilateral microtia underwent autologous ear reconstruction using costal cartilage graft were selected. Bilateral cases and Anotia types were excluded. Costal cartilages of 6th to 8th ribs were harvested in the 1st stage to shape the framework, 32 patients underwent 3D model planning while 12 patients were managed by 2D template. Elevation of the framework was done in the 2nd stage after 3-6 months. Satisfaction was recorded using a questionnaire form 4 months postoperatively. Results: Scores of 3D in specific items were significantly better than those in 2D. It was highly significant difference in satisfaction regarding concha subunit and separation of the auricle. Conclusion: After autogenous ear reconstruction, 3D modelling is more effective than 2D modelling at improving patient satisfaction, particularly with regard to the concha's form and separation from the scalp < /p> | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| 3D modeling; Autologous ear reconstruction; Patient satisfaction; Microtia management | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1- Li D., Chin W., Wu J., Zhang Q., Xu F., Xu Z. and Zhang R.: Psychosocial outcomes among microtia patients of different ages and genders before ear reconstruction. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 34 (5): 570-6, 2010. 2- Soukup B., Mashhadi S.A. and Bulstrode N.W.: Healthrelated quality-of-life assessment and surgical outcomes for auricular reconstruction using autologous costal cartilage. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 129 (3): 632- 40, 2012. 3- Pertschuk M.J. and Whitáker L.A.: Social and psychological effects of craniofacial deformity and surgical reconstruction. Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 9 (3): 297-306, 1982. 4- Dreher R., Blaya C., Tenório J.L.C., Saltz R., Ely P.B. and Ferrão Y.A.: Quality of life and aesthetic plastic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open., 4 (9): e862, 2016. 5- Bly R.A., Bhrany A.D., Murakami C.S. and Sie K.C.Y.: Microtia reconstruction. Facial Plast. Surg. Clin. North Am., 24 (4): 577-591, 2016. 6- Zhou J., Pan B., Yang Q., Zhao Y., He L., Lin L., Sun H., Song Y., Yu X., Sun Z. and Jiang H.: Three-dimensional autologous cartilage framework fabrication assisted by new additive manufactured ear-shaped templates for microtia reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 69 (10): 1436-44, 2016. 7- Jeon B., Lee C., Kim M., Choi T.H., Kim S. and Kim S.: Fabrication of three-dimensional scan-to-print ear model for microtia reconstruction. journal of Surgical Research, 206 (2): 490-7, 2016. 8- Mussi E., Furferi R., Volpe Y., Facchini F., McGreevy K.S. and Uccheddu F.: Ear reconstruction simulation: From handcrafting to 3D printing. Bioengineering, 6 (1): 14, 2019. 9- Liaw C.Y. and Guvendiren M.: Current and emerging applications of 3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication, 9 (2): 024102, 2017. 10- Cui C., Li Y., Zhang R., Zhang Q., Xu Z., Chiu E.S., Xu F., Li D., Li T. and Chen W.: Patient perception and satisfaction questionnaire for microtia reconstruction: A new clinical tool to improve patient outcome. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 29 (2): e162-7, 2018. 11- Clapham P.J., Pushman A.G. and Chung K.C.: A systematic review of applying patient satisfaction outcomes in plastic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 125: 1826-1833, 2010. 12- Honigman R.J., Phillips K.A. and Castle D.J.: A review of psychosocial outcomes for patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 113: 1229-1237, 2004. 13- Widodo D.W., Mars R., Suwento R., Alviandi W., Oriza I.I. and Bardosono S.: Satisfaction and health-related quality of life of patients with microtia following reconstructive surgery using the Nagata technique. PloS One, 16 (9): e0256652, 2021. 14- Akter F., Mennie J.C., Stewart K. and Bulstrode N.: Patient reported outcome measures in microtia surgery. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 70 (3): 416-24, 2017. Egypt, J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., October 2022 395 15- Horlock N., Vogelin E. and Bradbury E.T.: Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: A retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann. Plast. Surg., 54: 517-524, 2005. 16- Cui C., Hoon S.Y., Zhang R., Zhang Q., Xu Z., Xu F., Li D. and Li Y.: Patient satisfaction and its influencing factors of microtia reconstruction using autologous cartilage. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 41 (5): 1106-14, 2017. 17- Zhu P. and Chen S.: Clinical outcomes following ear reconstruction with adjuvant 3D template model. Acta. Oto-Laryngologica., 136 (12): 1236-41, 2016 | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 185 PDF Download: 254 |
||||
