Evaluation of a Fully Digital, In-House Virtual Surgical Planning Workflow for Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery
David Gagnier,Curtis Gregoire,James Brady,Andra Sterea,Taylor Chaput
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.05.002
Abstract:Background: The advantages of virtual surgical planning (VSP) for orthognathic surgery are clear. Previous studies have evaluated in-house VSP; however, few fully digital, in-house protocols for orthognathic surgery have been studied. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference between the virtual surgical plan and actual surgical outcome for orthognathic surgery using a fully digital, in-house VSP workflow. Study design, setting, sample: This is a prospective cohort study from September 2020 to November 2022 of patients at the Victoria General Hospital in Halifax, NS, Canada who underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Patients were excluded if they had previously undergone orthognathic surgery or were diagnosed with a craniofacial syndrome. Main outcome variables: The primary outcome variables were the mean 3-dimensional (3D) (Euclidean) distance error, as well as mean error and mean absolute error in the transverse (x axis), vertical (y axis), and anterior-posterior (z axis) dimensions. Covariates: Covariates included age, sex, and surgical sequence (mandible-first or maxilla-first). Analyses: The primary outcome was tested using Z and t critical value confidence intervals. The P value was set at .05. The 3D distance error for mandible-first and maxilla-first groups was compared using a 2-sample t-test as well as analysis of variance. Results: The study sample included 52 subjects (24 males and 28 females) with a mean age of 27.7 (± 12.1) years. Forty three subjects underwent mandible-first surgery and 9 maxilla-first surgery. The mean absolute distance error was largest in the anterior-posterior dimension for all landmarks (except posterior nasal spine, left condyle, and gonion) and exceeded the threshold for clinical acceptability (2 mm) in 16 of 23 landmarks. Additionally, mean distance error in the anterior-posterior dimension was negative for all landmarks, indicating deficient movement in that direction. The effect of surgical sequence on 3D distance error was not statistically significant (P = .37). Conclusion and relevance: In general, the largest contributor to mean 3D distance error was deficient movement in the anterior-posterior direction. Otherwise, mean absolute distance error in the vertical and transverse dimensions was clinically acceptable (< 2 mm). These findings were felt to be valuable for treatment planning purposes when using a fully digital, in-house VSP workflow.