title: Quantitative Assessment of Orbital Implant Position--A Proof of Concept.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In orbital reconstruction, the optimal location of a predefined implant can be planned preoperatively. Surgical results can be assessed intraoperatively or postoperatively. A novel method for quantifying orbital implant position is introduced. The method measures predictability of implant placement: transformation parameters between planned and resulting implant position are quantified.
  
  
  METHODS
  The method was tested on 3 human specimen heads. Computed Tomography scans were acquired at baseline with intact orbits (t0), after creation of the defect (t1) and postoperatively after reconstruction of the defect using a preformed implant (t2). Prior to reconstruction, the optimal implant position was planned on the t0 and t1 scans. Postoperatively, the planned and realized implant position were compared. The t0 and t2 scans were fused using iPlan software and the resulting implant was segmented in the fused t2 scan. An implant reference frame was created (Orbital Implant Positioning Frame); the planned implant was transformed to the reference position using an Iterative Closest Point approach. The segmentation of the resulting implant was also registered on the reference position, yielding rotational (pitch, yaw, roll) as well as translational parameters of implant position.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Measurement with the Orbital Implant Positioning Frame proved feasible on all three specimen. The positional outcome provided more thorough and accurate insight in resulting implant position than could be gathered from distance measurements alone. Observer-related errors were abolished from the process, since the method is largely automatic.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A novel method of quantifying surgical outcome in orbital reconstructive surgery was presented. The presented Orbital Implant Positioning Frame assessed all parameters involved in implant displacement. The method proved to be viable on three human specimen heads. Clinically, the method could provide direct feedback intraoperatively and could improve postoperative evaluation of orbital reconstructive surgery.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam (AMC) and Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.|3D Laboratory, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam (AMC) and Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: Ruud
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Schreurs
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam (AMC) and Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: Leander
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Dubois
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam (AMC) and Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: Alfred G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Becking
authors.affiliation: 3D Laboratory, Academic Medical Centre of Amsterdam (AMC) and Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: Thomas J J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Maal
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D001331:Automation; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D009915:Orbit / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D009917:Orbital Fractures / Q000601:surgery*; D011184:Postoperative Period; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures; D012984:Software; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed