Background: Despite increased adoption of virtual surgical planning (VSP) in various craniofacial indications, the incorporation of VSP/3DP into facial trauma care remains limited. Therefore, Expedited Preoperative Point of Care for Fracture Reduction to Normalized Anatomy and 3DP to Improve Surgical Outcomes (EPPOCRATIS) was introduced in 2021. This study evaluates our experience with EPPORATIS in craniomaxillofacial trauma over 10 years. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent facial trauma repair between September 2014 and September 2024 was conducted. For each VSP/3DP case, a patient with similar facial trauma patterns, who was treated without VSP, was selected. Evaluation metrics included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, complication rates, and fracture reduction accuracy through 3D heatmap analyses. Operative metrics were normalized by implant (i.e., fracture plates and screws) count to account for fracture complexity. A value of p < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results: The VSP group presented with more complex injuries and higher involvement of various surgical specialties (p < 0.5) and demonstrated longer operative times (p < 0.03). Although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.4), when adjusted for implant count, the VSP group had shorter operative times (median: 15.4 vs. 19.3 min/implant) and reduced blood loss compared to non-VSP cases (median: 3.4 mL/implant vs. 4.2 mL/implant). Complications, revision rates, and length of stay showed no significant differences. Conclusions: The use of VSP/3DP (EPPOCRATIS) in craniomaxillofacial trauma reconstruction demonstrated operative efficiency and accurate fracture reduction in complex cases. Further studies are needed to examine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care VSP/3DP in trauma centers.

Background/Objectives Auricular reconstruction poses significant surgical challenges in congenital and post-traumatic cases. Porous polyethylene (PPE) implants have emerged as a biocompatible alternative to the traditional autologous rib cartilage frames, offering less morbidity and a potentially stable framework. Here, we summarize the current evidence of the use of PPE auricular implants. Methods: A literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines across several databases. Studies reporting outcomes of PPE implants in auricular reconstruction were included. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, operative details, and complication rates, along with any required interventions to address complications. Complications were classified as minor or major based on their management strategy. Results: Of 544 screened studies, 14 studies representing 1036 patients were included. PPE implant use was generally linked with favorable esthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction (80%). Study-to-study variation in complication rates was notable, with some complication rates as high as 44% in the early 1990s. By the early 2000s, advancements in surgical methods—particularly the use of temporoparietal fascia (TPF) flaps and other flaps for optimal soft tissue coverage—had markedly reduced complication rates, with recent studies reporting rates as low as 7%. Implant exposure (6.7%) and implant fractures (ranging from 1.6% to 3.2%) were the most frequently reported problems. Conclusions: PPE auricular implants, despite decades of availability, have faced limited global adoption due to concerns over complications and longevity. Advances in surgical techniques have significantly reduced complication rates (<7%), making PPE implants a viable early intervention with favorable esthetics and negligible donor-site morbidity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A typical workflow for deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery consists of head frame placement, followed by stereotactic computed tomography (CT) or MRI before surgical implantation of the hardware. At some institutions, this workflow is prolonged when the imaging scanner is located far away from the operating room, thereby increasing workflow times by the addition of transport times. Recently, the intraoperative O-arm has been shown to provide accurate image fusion with preoperative CT or MR imaging, suggesting the possibility of obtaining an intraoperative localization scan and postoperative confirmation. In this article, we aim to evaluate the compatibility of the stereotactic frame system with the intraoperative O-arm system regarding lead accuracy and surgical flow. METHODS: A total of 17 patients undergoing DBS surgery for movement disorders were evaluated. One patient underwent both the stereotactic CT and O-arm localization, while 16 patients underwent only intraoperative O-arm localization. Following lead placement, intraoperative O-arm imaging was obtained to evaluate the accuracy of the lead placement. Accuracy was defined as the error measured as the distance from the center of the planned trajectory to the cannula. RESULTS: Less than 0.1 mm difference was found between the O-arm imaging technique and CT image localization of the NaviNetics stereotactic head frame in DBS surgery. Of the 16 patients who underwent the intraoperative O-arm imaging alone, the targets included bilateral ventral intermediate nucleus (16 leads), bilateral globus pallidus internus (4 leads), and subthalamic nucleus (12 leads). The mean ± SD radial error in the probe's eye view was 0.71 ± 0.33 mm for n = 32 leads. No tract hemorrhage was observed. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative O-arm imaging can be used safely and effectively for stereotactic registration and lead placement confirmation with the stereotactic system in both awake and asleep DBS surgery.