Is There a Difference in Cost Between Standard and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery?
- PMID: 27181623
- DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.03.035
Is There a Difference in Cost Between Standard and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery?
Abstract
Purpose: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3-dimensional printing of surgical splints are becoming the standard of care for orthognathic surgery, but costs have not been thoroughly evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of VSP and 3-dimensional printing of splints ("VSP") versus that of 2-dimensional cephalometric evaluation, model surgery, and manual splint fabrication ("standard planning").
Materials and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients planned for bimaxillary surgery from January 2014 to January 2015 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients were divided into 3 groups by case type: symmetric, nonsegmental (group 1); asymmetric (group 2); and segmental (group 3). All cases underwent both VSP and standard planning with times for all activities recorded. The primary and secondary predictor variables were method of treatment planning and case type, respectively. Time-driven activity-based micro-costing analysis was used to quantify the differences in cost. Results were analyzed using a paired t test and analysis of variance.
Results: The sample included 43 patients (19 in group 1, 17 in group 2, and 7 in group 3). The average times and costs were 194 ± 14.1 minutes and $2,765.94, respectively, for VSP and 540.9 ± 99.5 minutes and $3,519.18, respectively, for standard planning. For the symmetric, nonsegmental group, the average times and costs were 188 ± 17.8 minutes and $2,700.52, respectively, for VSP and 524.4 ± 86.1 minutes and $3,380.17, respectively, for standard planning. For the asymmetric group, the average times and costs were 187.4 ± 10.9 minutes and $2,713.69, respectively, for VSP and 556.1 ± 94.1 minutes and $3,640.00, respectively, for standard planning. For the segmental group, the average times and costs were 208.8 ± 13.5 minutes and $2,883.62, respectively, for VSP and 542.3 ± 118.4 minutes and $3,537.37, respectively, for standard planning. All time and cost differences were statistically significant (P < .001).
Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that VSP for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery takes significantly less time and is less expensive than standard planning for the 3 types of cases analyzed.
Copyright © 2016 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Customized virtual surgical planning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a prospective randomized trial.Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jul;23(7):3115-3122. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2732-3. Epub 2018 Nov 15. Clin Oral Investig. 2019. PMID: 30443778 Clinical Trial.
-
Is Virtual Surgical Planning in Orthognathic Surgery Faster Than Conventional Planning? A Time and Workflow Analysis of an Office-Based Workflow for Single- and Double-Jaw Surgery.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Feb;76(2):397-407. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.07.162. Epub 2017 Jul 25. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018. PMID: 28826783
-
Comparison of time required for traditional versus virtual orthognathic surgery treatment planning.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;45(9):1065-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.03.012. Epub 2016 Apr 18. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016. PMID: 27102289
-
Virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery.Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2014 Nov;26(4):459-73. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2014.08.011. Epub 2014 Sep 22. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2014. PMID: 25246324 Review.
-
A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery: Based on Randomized Clinical Trials.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Feb;79(2):471.e1-471.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.09.005. Epub 2020 Sep 9. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021. PMID: 33031773
Cited by
-
Current and novel treatment options for obstructive sleep apnoea.ERJ Open Res. 2022 Jun 27;8(2):00126-2022. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00126-2022. eCollection 2022 Apr. ERJ Open Res. 2022. PMID: 35769417 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Virtual surgical plan with custom surgical guide for orthognathic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024 Nov 14;46(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40902-024-00449-2. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024. PMID: 39541065 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Are Virtually Designed 3D Printed Surgical Splints Accurate Enough for Maxillary Reposition as an Intermediate Orthognathic Surgical Guide.J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023 Dec;22(4):861-872. doi: 10.1007/s12663-023-01942-3. Epub 2023 Jun 9. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023. PMID: 38105840 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical effectiveness of late maxillary protraction in cleft lip and palate: A methods paper.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017 Jun;20 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):129-133. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12182. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017. PMID: 28643931 Free PMC article.
-
Virtual Surgical Planning in Free Tissue Transfer for Orbito-Maxillary Reconstruction.Semin Plast Surg. 2022 Aug 31;36(3):183-191. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1754386. eCollection 2022 Aug. Semin Plast Surg. 2022. PMID: 36506272 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources