Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery

Standard

Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery. / Heiland, Max; Habermann, Christian R; Schmelzle, Rainer.

in: J ORAL MAXIL SURG, Jahrgang 62, Nr. 9, 01.09.2004, S. 1059-63.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

Heiland, M, Habermann, CR & Schmelzle, R 2004, 'Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery', J ORAL MAXIL SURG, Jg. 62, Nr. 9, S. 1059-63.

APA

Heiland, M., Habermann, C. R., & Schmelzle, R. (2004). Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery. J ORAL MAXIL SURG, 62(9), 1059-63.

Vancouver

Heiland M, Habermann CR, Schmelzle R. Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery. J ORAL MAXIL SURG. 2004 Sep 1;62(9):1059-63.

Bibtex

@article{02c6b1abf3844d7eb49614860aee9ef4,
title = "Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Although primarily developed for neurosurgical application, intraoperative navigation has gained acceptance even in maxillofacial surgery with an increasing field of indications. We want to demonstrate our clinical experiences, focusing on the indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our department, the navigation system VectorVision (BrainLAB, Heimstetten, Germany) is used. The accuracy of this referencing method, consisting of a cortical fixed reference system and surface scanning, was checked by anatomic landmarks. Surgical treatment of 20 patients was performed with the help of the navigation system.RESULTS: The VectorVision system proved to be a useful supplement during the surgical exploration of complex anatomic regions. However, resolution of imaging data sets, errors of image fusion, and discrepancies during referencing increased the inaccuracy before surgery. The main problem was the topographic changes caused by surgery, resulting in discrepancies between the preoperative image data and the surgical site. In one case suffering from a meningioma extending to the neck, topography was changed by surgery making navigation inaccurate.CONCLUSION: Generally, a promising field for intraoperative navigation systems were small surgical approaches allowing only limited exposure. From our point of view, additional promising indications include vast tumors or recurrent tumors because of altered anatomy with lost landmarks during surgery. The same was the case of patients suffering from plexiform neurofibroma caused by neurofibromatosis type I. Further, intraoperative navigation was helpful to determine the position of foreign bodies during imaging, making the intraoperative location easier.",
keywords = "Adult, Aged, Child, Craniofacial Abnormalities, Equipment Design, Facial Bones, Female, Foreign Bodies, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Oral Surgical Procedures, Orbit, Skull Fractures, Stereotaxic Techniques, Surgery, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, User-Computer Interface",
author = "Max Heiland and Habermann, {Christian R} and Rainer Schmelzle",
year = "2004",
month = sep,
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "1059--63",
journal = "J ORAL MAXIL SURG",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery

AU - Heiland, Max

AU - Habermann, Christian R

AU - Schmelzle, Rainer

PY - 2004/9/1

Y1 - 2004/9/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Although primarily developed for neurosurgical application, intraoperative navigation has gained acceptance even in maxillofacial surgery with an increasing field of indications. We want to demonstrate our clinical experiences, focusing on the indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our department, the navigation system VectorVision (BrainLAB, Heimstetten, Germany) is used. The accuracy of this referencing method, consisting of a cortical fixed reference system and surface scanning, was checked by anatomic landmarks. Surgical treatment of 20 patients was performed with the help of the navigation system.RESULTS: The VectorVision system proved to be a useful supplement during the surgical exploration of complex anatomic regions. However, resolution of imaging data sets, errors of image fusion, and discrepancies during referencing increased the inaccuracy before surgery. The main problem was the topographic changes caused by surgery, resulting in discrepancies between the preoperative image data and the surgical site. In one case suffering from a meningioma extending to the neck, topography was changed by surgery making navigation inaccurate.CONCLUSION: Generally, a promising field for intraoperative navigation systems were small surgical approaches allowing only limited exposure. From our point of view, additional promising indications include vast tumors or recurrent tumors because of altered anatomy with lost landmarks during surgery. The same was the case of patients suffering from plexiform neurofibroma caused by neurofibromatosis type I. Further, intraoperative navigation was helpful to determine the position of foreign bodies during imaging, making the intraoperative location easier.

AB - PURPOSE: Although primarily developed for neurosurgical application, intraoperative navigation has gained acceptance even in maxillofacial surgery with an increasing field of indications. We want to demonstrate our clinical experiences, focusing on the indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our department, the navigation system VectorVision (BrainLAB, Heimstetten, Germany) is used. The accuracy of this referencing method, consisting of a cortical fixed reference system and surface scanning, was checked by anatomic landmarks. Surgical treatment of 20 patients was performed with the help of the navigation system.RESULTS: The VectorVision system proved to be a useful supplement during the surgical exploration of complex anatomic regions. However, resolution of imaging data sets, errors of image fusion, and discrepancies during referencing increased the inaccuracy before surgery. The main problem was the topographic changes caused by surgery, resulting in discrepancies between the preoperative image data and the surgical site. In one case suffering from a meningioma extending to the neck, topography was changed by surgery making navigation inaccurate.CONCLUSION: Generally, a promising field for intraoperative navigation systems were small surgical approaches allowing only limited exposure. From our point of view, additional promising indications include vast tumors or recurrent tumors because of altered anatomy with lost landmarks during surgery. The same was the case of patients suffering from plexiform neurofibroma caused by neurofibromatosis type I. Further, intraoperative navigation was helpful to determine the position of foreign bodies during imaging, making the intraoperative location easier.

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Child

KW - Craniofacial Abnormalities

KW - Equipment Design

KW - Facial Bones

KW - Female

KW - Foreign Bodies

KW - Head and Neck Neoplasms

KW - Humans

KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

KW - Imaging, Three-Dimensional

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Neoplasm Recurrence, Local

KW - Oral Surgical Procedures

KW - Orbit

KW - Skull Fractures

KW - Stereotaxic Techniques

KW - Surgery, Computer-Assisted

KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed

KW - User-Computer Interface

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 15346354

VL - 62

SP - 1059

EP - 1063

JO - J ORAL MAXIL SURG

JF - J ORAL MAXIL SURG

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 9

ER -