Search

Modern imaging techniques are an essential component of preoperative planning in plastic and reconstructive surgery. However, conventional modalities, including three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions, are limited by their representation on 2D workstations. 3D printing, also known as rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing, was once the province of industry to fabricate models from a computer-aided design (CAD) in a layer-by-layer manner. The early adopters in clinical practice have embraced the medical imaging-guided 3D-printed biomodels for their ability to provide tactile feedback and a superior appreciation of visuospatial relationship between anatomical structures. With increasing accessibility, investigators are able to convert standard imaging data into a CAD file using various 3D reconstruction softwares and ultimately fabricate 3D models using 3D printing techniques, such as stereolithography, multijet modeling, selective laser sintering, binder jet technique, and fused deposition modeling. However, many clinicians have questioned whether the cost-to-benefit ratio justifies its ongoing use. The cost and size of 3D printers have rapidly decreased over the past decade in parallel with the expiration of key 3D printing patents. Significant improvements in clinical imaging and user-friendly 3D software have permitted computer-aided 3D modeling of anatomical structures and implants without outsourcing in many cases. These developments offer immense potential for the application of 3D printing at the bedside for a variety of clinical applications. In this review, existing uses of 3D printing in plastic surgery practice spanning the spectrum from templates for facial transplantation surgery through to the formation of bespoke craniofacial implants to optimize post-operative esthetics are described. Furthermore, we discuss the potential of 3D printing to become an essential office-based tool in plastic surgery to assist in preoperative planning, developing intraoperative guidance tools, teaching patients and surgical trainees, and producing patient-specific prosthetics in everyday surgical practice.

Background: Ameloblastoma is the second most common odontogenic tumor, known to be slow-growing, persistent, and locally aggressive. Recent data suggests that ameloblastoma is best treated with wide resection and adequate margins. Following primary excision, bony reconstruction is often necessary for a functional and aesthetically satisfactory outcome, making early diagnosis paramount. Despite earlier diagnosis potentially limiting the extent of resection and reconstruction, an understanding of the growth rate and natural history of ameloblastoma has been notably lacking from the literature. Method: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by reviewing relevant articles from PubMed and Web of Science databases. Each article's level of evidence was formally appraised according to the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM), with data from each utilized in a meta-analysis of growth rates for ameloblastoma. Results: Literature regarding the natural history of ameloblastoma is limited since the tumor is immediately acted upon at its initial detection, unless the patient voluntarily refuses a surgical intervention. From the limited data, it is derived that the highest estimated growth rate is associated with solid, multicystic type and the lowest rate with peripheral ameloblastomas. After meta-analysis, the calculated mean specific grow rate is 87.84% per year. Conclusion: The growth rate of ameloblastoma has been demonstrated, offering prognostic and management information, particularly in cases where a delay in management is envisaged.

Band slippage is a significant complication of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. This involves prolapse of part of the stomach, with varying degrees of gastric obstruction. The original perigastric technique (PGT) was associated with slippage rates of up to 25%. The pars flaccida technique (PFT) is the more commonly used technique today, reducing slippage rates to as low as 1.4%. We report a technique not previously described, the modified PFT with the use of mesh, and compare slippage rates between these three techniques for band placement.A prospectively entered, retrospective review of 1,446 consecutive patients undergoing LAGB by a single surgeon was undertaken. Patients were divided into five consecutive groups: PGT learning curve (PGTLC) (n = 68), PGT (n = 19), mesh PFT (MPFT) (n = 415), mesh plication PFT (MPPFT) (n = 131), and MPPFT with inadequate follow-up (n = 813). Patient characteristics, band slippage, and other complication rates were compared between groups.The slippage rates for each group were: PGTLC (10%), PGT (5%), MPFT (0.8%), and MPPFT (0%). This demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the slippage rates for each group (p0.001). Combining the MPFT and MPPFT groups, there was a statistically significant difference in band slippage compared to the PGT group (p0.001).While the MPFT is associated with low band slippage rates, the MPPFT results in further reductions in band slippage. The routine use of this modification to the MPFT is safe and may reduce operative morbidity. A randomized comparison of these techniques is warranted.