PSI: Planner-specific, physician-specific, or patient-specific implant for orbital reconstruction?

This study aimed to identify and quantify the variations in PSI designs intended for an identical patient. Records from 10 patients with an orbital fracture involving two walls, for which a primary orbital reconstruction was indicated, were retrospectively included. Clinical engineers from two centers independently generated proposal designs for all patients. Following web meeting(s) with the surgeon from the same institute, the PSI designs were finalized by the engineer. A cross-over of the engineer with the surgeon of the other center created two new design teams. In total, 20 proposal and 40 final PSI designs were produced. A three-dimensional comparison between different PSI designs for the same patient was performed by computing a difference score. Initially, the design proposals of the two engineers showed a median difference score of 37%, which was significantly reduced to a median difference score of 26% for the final designs with different engineers. The median difference score of 22% between surgeons demonstrated that both parties introduced notable user variations to the final designs. Evidence supporting the advantages of an experienced design team was found, with significantly fewer modifications, fewer meetings, and less time required to complete the design (up to 40% time reduction). The findings of the study underline the dependency of PSI design on the surgeon and engineer, and support the need for a more evidence-based protocol for PSI design.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)