Benefits of Patient-Specific Reconstruction Plates in Mandibular Reconstruction Surgical Simulation and Resident Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poorly contoured mandibular reconstruction plates are associated with postoperative complications. Recently, a technique emerged whereby preoperative patient-specific reconstructive plates (PSRP) are developed in the hopes of eliminating errors in the plate-bending process. This study’s objective is to determine if reconstructions performed with PSRP are more accurate than manually contoured plates. Ten Otolaryngology residents each performed two ex vivo mandibular reconstructions, first using a PSRP followed by a manually contoured plate. Reconstruction time, CT scans, and accuracy measurements were collected. Paired Student’s t-test was performed. There was a significant difference between reconstructions with PSRP and manually contoured plates in: plate-mandible distance (0.39 ± 0.21 vs. 0.75 ± 0.31 mm, p = 0.0128), inter-fibular segment gap (0.90 ± 0.32 vs. 2.24 ± 1.03 mm, p = 0.0095), mandible-fibula gap (1.02 ± 0.39 vs. 2.87 ± 2.38 mm, p = 0.0260), average reconstruction deviation (1.11 ± 0.32 vs. 1.67 ± 0.47 mm, p = 0.0228), mandibular angle width difference (5.13 ± 4.32 vs. 11.79 ± 4.27 mm, p = 0.0221), and reconstruction time (16.67 ± 4.18 vs. 33.78 ± 8.45 min, p = 0.0006). Lower plate-mandible distance has been demonstrated to correlate with decreased plate extrusion rates. Similarly, improved bony apposition promotes bony union. PSRP appears to provide a more accurate scaffold to guide the surgeons in assembling donor bone segments, which could potentially improve patient outcome and reduce surgical time. Additionally, in-house PSRP can serve as a low-cost surgical simulation tool for resident education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".