Vectra 3D Simulation in Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty: How Accurate is it?

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MIRANDA_Vectra_3D_Simulation_in_Lower_Eyelid_Blepharoplasty_How_2022.PDF (4.6 MB)
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
Citação
AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, v.46, n.3, p.1241-1250, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background Estimating the volume of fat to be resected during lower lid blepharoplasty can be challenging. While the excess fat is clearly visible in the upright position, it retracts into the orbital cavity when the patient is in decubitus. Several tools have been developed to predict the volume required for adequate outcomes and to reduce the risk of complications. Among these, 3D photography, in addition to being noninvasive, radiation-free, portable and relatively inexpensive, can be used to make simulations. Objective To assess the level of agreement between Vectra H1 camera simulations and the outcome of lower eyelid blepharoplasties with volume removal based on these simulations. Methods Preoperatively, a 3D camera and simulation software (Vectra H1, Canfield Imaging Systems) was used to estimate the fat pad volume to be resected from the lower eyelids in a sample of 35 patients (female n = 34) aged 55 years on average. Following the procedure, the patients were photographed at 1, 3 and 6 months and the outcome was compared to the simulation. Results The agreement between the simulated volume and the intraoperative volume was high. While the difference between the postoperative volume and the simulated volume decreased over time, at 6 months the actual volume was still 0.30 mL (right eye) and 0.24 mL (left eye) larger than the simulated volume. Conclusions A systematic and significant difference was found between the simulation volume and the postoperative volume. The low level of agreement observed suggests that the accuracy of the tested software is insufficient for reliable simulations.
Palavras-chave
Three-dimensional image, Photogrammetry, Blepharoplasty, Eyelids, Organ size
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/49287
Referências
  1. Alsarraf R, 2000, AESTHET PLAST SURG, V24, P192, DOI 10.1007/s002660010031
  2. Avram MM, 2020, J AM ACAD DERMATOL
  3. Camison L, 2018, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V47, P403, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.08.008
  4. Camp MC, 2011, J PLAST RECONSTR AES, V64, P148, DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.04.037
  5. CASTANARES S, 1951, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V8, P46, DOI 10.1097/00006534-195107000-00003
  6. Choppin SB, 2016, BREAST, V28, P121, DOI 10.1016/j.breast.2016.05.010
  7. Collar RM, 2013, FACIAL PLAST SURG, V29, P32, DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1333836
  8. Cristel RT, 2020, FACIAL PLAST SURG, V36, P478, DOI 10.1055/s-0040-1713790
  9. de Menezes M, 2010, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V68, P2129, DOI 10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.036
  10. Donath AS, 2010, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V125, P1515, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d70317
  11. Drolet BC, 2014, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V133, P1195, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000087
  12. Garcia RE, 2006, ARCH FACIAL PLAST S, V8, P374, DOI 10.1001/archfaci.8.6.374
  13. Giavarina D, 2015, BIOCHEM MEDICA, V25, P141, DOI 10.11613/BM.2015.015
  14. Gibelli D, 2018, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V76, P1772, DOI 10.1016/j.joms.2018.01.021
  15. Hashem AM, 2017, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V139, p139E, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002849
  16. Hermans DJJ, 2014, PEDIATR DERMATOL, V31, P118, DOI 10.1111/pde.12224
  17. Hoeffelin H, 2014, BIOMED RES INT, V2014, DOI 10.1155/2014/573249
  18. Honrado Carlo P, 2004, Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, V12, P327, DOI 10.1097/01.moo.0000130578.12441.99
  19. Hyer JN, 2021, ORBIT-ABINGDON, V40, P9, DOI 10.1080/01676830.2020.1711780
  20. Jodeh DS, 2019, CLEFT PALATE-CRAN J, V56, P1164, DOI 10.1177/1055665619839577
  21. Kossler AL, 2018, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V34, P37, DOI 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000849
  22. Lelli GJ, 2010, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V125, P1007, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ce17e8
  23. Lubbers HT, 2012, BRIT J ORAL MAX SURG, V50, P171, DOI 10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.12.002
  24. Maal TJJ, 2011, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V40, P1252, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.02.033
  25. Massry GG, 2010, FACIAL PLAST SURG, V26, P208, DOI 10.1055/s-0030-1254331
  26. Miller TR, 2016, JAMA FACIAL PLAST SU, V18, P108, DOI 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.2184
  27. Perez-Carrasco JA, 2015, COMPUT MED IMAG GRAP, V40, P128, DOI 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2014.12.007
  28. Rohrich RJ, 2017, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V139, P1381, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003398
  29. Schwarcz RM, 2015, CLIN PLAST SURG, V42, P63, DOI 10.1016/j.cps.2014.08.008
  30. Smith Christopher Blake, 2016, Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, V24, P135, DOI 10.1016/j.cxom.2016.05.007
  31. Tzou CHJ, 2014, J PLAST RECONSTR AES, V67, P489, DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003
  32. van der Meer WJ, 2014, BRIT J ORAL MAX SURG, V52, P922, DOI 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.08.019
  33. White JD, 2020, SCI REP-UK, V10, DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-61333-3
  34. Zoumalan CI, 2016, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V137, p196E, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001906

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOF
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/33