Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 11, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Navigation Guidance During Free Flap Mandibular Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Trial
R Alex Harbison1, Xiao-Feng Shan2, Zachary Douglas1
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Importance:
Segmental mandibulectomy for tumors that distort the buccal surface of the mandible present a reconstructive challenge.
Objective:
To determine whether mandible alignment after navigation-guided mandible reconstruction is better than alignment after non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction and as good as template-assisted reconstruction in a cadaveric trial.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
A cadaveric trial using 10 specimens was conducted at a tertiary academic center. Fiducials were created on the ramus to compare alignment with each intervention. Segmental mandibulectomy was performed on each cadaver. Each cadaver underwent navigation-guided reconstruction, template-assisted reconstruction using a manually shaped plate, and non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction with plate contouring performed after mandibulectomy. The study was conducted from October 1, 2015, to January 1, 2016; data analysis was performed from February 1, 2016, to March 1, 2016.
Interventions:
Segmental mandibulectomy, navigation-guided reconstruction, template-assisted reconstruction using a manually shaped plate, and non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Ramus fiducial coordinates were recorded at baseline and after each intervention. Mandible dimensions were measured using cephalometric landmarks. Postintervention and baseline differences in ramus and mandible position were calculated.
Results:
Ramus alignment was not significantly different between navigation-guided and template-assisted reconstruction, differing by 0.54 mm (98.3% CI, -0.38 to 1.47 mm). Non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction was associated with a 3.14-mm difference in alignment compared with template-assisted reconstruction (98.3% CI, 1.09 to 5.19 mm). Navigation-guided alignment resulted in a 3.69-mm improvement in alignment compared with non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction (98.3% CI, 1.79 to 5.58 mm). There was some improvement in the gonion-gonion and lingula mandibulae-lingula mandibulae (Lm-Lm) alignment for navigation-assisted compared with non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction by 1.97 mm (98.3% CI, -0.65 to 4.58 mm) and 1.39 mm (98.3% CI, -0.17 to 2.95 mm), respectively. There was marginal evidence of better Lm-Lm alignment for navigation-guided than template-assisted reconstruction (0.44 mm; 98.3% CI, -0.06 to 0.95 mm).
Conclusions And Relevance:
Mandible alignment following navigation-guided reconstruction is similar to template-assisted reconstruction. Navigation-guided alignment is likely better than non-template-assisted freehand reconstruction, and navigation guidance offers a reliable technique for real-time adjustment when reconstructing complex surgical defects, such as tumors effacing the buccal cortex of the mandible.
