Background: Post-traumatic orbital-ZMC deformity is notoriously difficult to correct because of soft tissue contraction and loss of anatomic landmarks. To see whether virtual planning is beneficial, we studied orbital/malar volume correction, globe position, malar projection and patient satisfaction. Methods: Patients were divided into 2 equal groups: 1) traditional intraoperative repositioning (‘eyeball test’); 2) virtual mirrored-image planning over a 12-year period (n=32). Outcomes were compared using 1) orbital volume, 2) globe position, 3) malar projection, 4) malar soft-tissue volume; and 5) PROMIS surveys. Results: Groups were comparable: age (38.2 ± 5 years vs 36.8 ± 4 years), mechanism of injury (fall/motor vehicle collision/assault: 35/28/37% vs 31/33/36%), time from injury to reconstruction (4.2 ± 3 years vs 3.8 ± 2 years), follow-up duration (13.1 ± 4 months vs 12.7 ± 2 months). Orbital volume: The traditional group had greater variability in postoperative orbital volume (26.1cc ± 5.1 vs 25.5cc ± 1.7) and globe position. Malar projection: Postoperative deviation from the ideal malar coordinate was lower with VSP, indicating greater accuracy (1.6 mm ± 0.4 vs 4.3 mm ± 3.1). Malar Volume: Both groups improved, but VSP demonstrated lower variability and greater predictability (102.2 cc ± 2.8 vs 98.2 cc ± 8.1). PROMIS scores were superior with VSP, including Anxiety (56 ± 2.4 vs. 61 ± 2.8) and Depression (54 ± 2.2 vs. 59 ± 2.3). Conclusions: For post-traumatic ZMC/ orbital deformity, virtual mirrored-image planning is superior to traditional visual estimation technique regarding symmetry, globe position, malar projection and psychosocial scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miller et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: