Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34(05): 341-347
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1621735
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Cost Comparison among Traditional, In-House, and Commercial Options

Sean S. Li
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, California
,
Libby R. Copeland-Halperin
2   Department of Surgery, Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia
,
Alexander J. Kaminsky
2   Department of Surgery, Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia
,
Jihui Li
2   Department of Surgery, Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia
,
Fahad K. Lodhi
3   School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
,
Reza Miraliakbari
4   Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Consultants, LLC, Fairfax, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 July 2017

19 November 2017

Publication Date:
20 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) has redefined surgery, improved precision and reduced the reliance on intraoperative trial-and-error manipulations. CASS is provided by third-party services; however, it may be cost-effective for some hospitals to develop in-house programs. This study provides the first cost analysis comparison among traditional (no CASS), commercial CASS, and in-house CASS for head and neck reconstruction.

Methods The costs of three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative planning for mandibular and maxillary reconstructions were obtained from an in-house CASS program at our large tertiary care hospital in Northern Virginia, as well as a commercial provider (Synthes, Paoli, PA). A cost comparison was performed among these modalities and extrapolated in-house CASS costs were derived. The calculations were based on estimated CASS use with cost structures similar to our institution and sunk costs were amortized over 10 years.

Results Average operating room time was estimated at 10 hours, with an average of 2 hours saved with CASS. The hourly cost to the hospital for the operating room (including anesthesia and other ancillary costs) was estimated at $4,614/hour. Per case, traditional cases were $46,140, commercial CASS cases were $40,951, and in-house CASS cases were $38,212. Annual in-house CASS costs were $39,590.

Conclusions CASS reduced operating room time, likely due to improved efficiency and accuracy. Our data demonstrate that hospitals with similar cost structure as ours, performing greater than 27 cases of 3D head and neck reconstructions per year can see a financial benefit from developing an in-house CASS program.

Keywords

CASS - VSP - head and neck

Disclosure

None.


Note

This study was presented at VASPS on November 7, 2015, NESPS on September 18, 2015, and at ASRM on January 19, 2016.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hidalgo DA. Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 84 (01) 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hammoudeh JA, Howell LK, Boutros S, Scott MA, Urata MM. Current Status of Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery: Traditional Methods versus 3D Surgical Planning. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (02) e307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Markiewicz MR, Bell RB. The use of 3D imaging tools in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 655-682 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hirsch DL, Garfein ES, Christensen AM, Weimer KA, Saddeh PB, Levine JP. Use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing to produce orthognathically ideal surgical outcomes: a paradigm shift in head and neck reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67 (10) 2115-2122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Antony AK, Chen WF, Kolokythas A, Weimer KA, Cohen MN. Use of virtual surgery and stereolithography-guided osteotomy for mandibular reconstruction with the free fibula. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (05) 1080-1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Avraham T, Franco P, Brecht LE. , et al. Functional outcomes of virtually planned free fibula flap reconstruction of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (04) 628e-634e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bell RB, Weimer KA, Dierks EJ, Buehler M, Lubek JE. Computer planning and intraoperative navigation for palatomaxillary and mandibular reconstruction with fibular free flaps. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (03) 724-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bell RB. Computer planning and intraoperative navigation in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (03) 592-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Foley BD, Thayer WP, Honeybrook A, McKenna S, Press S. Mandibular reconstruction using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing: an analysis of surgical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71 (02) e111-e119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hallermann W, Olsen S, Bardyn T, Taghizadeh F, Banic A, Iizuka T. A new method for computer-aided operation planning for extensive mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (07) 2431-2437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Levine JP, Patel A, Saadeh PB, Hirsch DL. Computer-aided design and manufacturing in craniomaxillofacial surgery: the new state of the art. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23 (01) 288-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Metzler P, Geiger EJ, Alcon A, Ma X, Steinbacher DM. Three-dimensional virtual surgery accuracy for free fibula mandibular reconstruction: planned versus actual results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72 (12) 2601-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Monaco C, Stranix JT, Avraham T. , et al. Evolution of surgical techniques for mandibular reconstruction using free fibula flaps: The next generation. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl. 01) E2066-E2073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel A, Otterburn D, Saadeh P, Levine J, Hirsch DL. 3D volume assessment techniques and computer-aided design and manufacturing for preoperative fabrication of implants in head and neck reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 683-709 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tepper OM, Sorice S, Hershman GN, Saadeh P, Levine JP, Hirsch D. Use of virtual 3-dimensional surgery in post-traumatic craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69 (03) 733-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zheng GS, Su YX, Liao GQ, Liu HC, Zhang SE, Liang LZ. Mandibular reconstruction assisted by preoperative simulation and accurate transferring templates: preliminary report of clinical application. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71 (09) 1613-1618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chang EI, Jenkins MP, Patel SA, Topham NS. Long-term operative outcomes of preoperative computed tomography-guided virtual surgical planning for osteocutaneous free flap mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 619-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rodby KA, Turin S, Jacobs RJ. , et al. Advances in oncologic head and neck reconstruction: systematic review and future considerations of virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (09) 1171-1185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Roser SM, Ramachandra S, Blair H. , et al. The accuracy of virtual surgical planning in free fibula mandibular reconstruction: comparison of planned and final results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68 (11) 2824-2832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tucker S, Cevidanes LHS, Styner M. , et al. Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3-dimensional surgical simulations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68 (10) 2412-2421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hemmy DC, David DJ, Herman GT. Three-dimensional reconstruction of craniofacial deformity using computed tomography. Neurosurgery 1983; 13 (05) 534-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Komori T, Takato T, Akagawa T. Use of a laser-hardened three-dimensional replica for simulated surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994; 52 (05) 516-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schwartz HC. Does computer-aided surgical simulation improve efficiency in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43 (05) 572-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Toto JM, Chang EI, Agag R, Devarajan K, Patel SA, Topham NS. Improved operative efficiency of free fibula flap mandible reconstruction with patient-specific, computer-guided preoperative planning. Head Neck 2015; 37 (11) 1660-1664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cornelius CP, Smolka W, Giessler GA, Wilde F, Probst FA. Patient-specific reconstruction plates are the missing link in computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction: a showcase for technical description. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (05) 624-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Taylor EM, Iorio ML. Surgeon-based 3D printing for microvascular bone flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (06) 441-445
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Deek NFAL, Wei F-C. Computer-assisted surgery for segmental mandibular reconstruction with the osteoseptocutaneous fibula flap: can we instigate ideological and technological reforms?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 963-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Olsson P, Nysjö F, Rodríguez-Lorenzo A, Thor A, Hirsch JM, Carlbom IB. Haptics-assisted virtual planning of bone, soft tissue, and vessels in fibula osteocutaneous free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (08) e479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar