Virtual Reality Planning in Reconstructive Surgery for Orbital Prosthetic Rehabilitation Using ImmersiveTouch Platform: Preliminary Report.

Background/purpose: Virtual reality (VR) is emerging as an effective and intuitive surgical planning and 3D visualization tool. Digital surgical planning is the gold standard for planning the placement of implants in maxillofacial prosthetics, but the field lacks a platform exclusively designed to perform the task. Virtual reality planning (VRP) specific for maxillofacial prosthetics offers the clinician improved control of the presurgical planning and the potential to limit the need to adapt other advanced segmentation software. Furthermore, the virtual plan can be directly translated to the patient through custom 3D printed (3DP) surgical guides and visual aids. To the best of our knowledge, this article outlines the development of the world's first virtual reality planning platform and workflow for pre-operatory planning within a VR environment for clinical use specific to facial prosthetics and anaplastology.

Method: The workflow was applied to managing 2 patients presenting with unilateral total exenteration and severe contracture enucleation, respectively (n=2). A cone-beam CT was acquired for each patient, and their data set was directly imported into the ImmersiveView Surgical Plan VR environment (ImmersiveTouch Inc, Chicago, IL). The clinicians virtually selected appropriately sized craniofacial implants and placed the implants in the desired orientation. Various measurement tools are available to aid in clinical decision-making. The ideal location of craniofacial implants was set according to an orbital and auricular prosthetic reconstruction. The resultant VR plan was exported for 3DP. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the proposed VRP treatment. The workflow's data accuracy was validated postoperatively by comparing posterative CT data and the proposed VRP. Analysis was performed using Mimics software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium).

Result: It takes, on average, 10 minutes to place 4 implants in the virtual reality space. The 3DP files resulting from VRP take ~2 hours to print and are constructed with a biocompatible resin appropriate for clinical use as surgical guides. Our user-friendly VRP workflow allows for an accurate simulation of surgical and nonsurgical procedures with an average displacement in XYZ of 0.6 mm and an SD of 0.3 mm. In addition, VRP is an excellent tool to simulate the craniofacial placement procedure and improves unsupervised self-learning teaching.

Conclusion: VRP is an exciting tool for training clinicians and students in complex surgical procedures. This study shows the promising applicability and efficiency of VR in clinical planning and management of facial rehabilitation. Patients allowed to interact with VR have been engaged, which would aid their treatment acceptance and patient education. A valuable advantage of surgical simulation is the reduced costs associated with renting instruments, buying implant dummies, and surgical hardware. The authors will explore VR to plan and treat surgical and nonsurgical reconstructive procedures and improve soft tissue manipulation. This study outlines the development of an original platform and workflow for segmentation, preoperative planning, and digital design within a VR environment and the clinical use in reconstructive surgery and anaplastology.