Impact of In-House 3D-Printed Models on Re-Operation Rates and Volumetric Precision in Orbital Floor Reconstruction: A Comparative Study

Background/Objectives: Reconstruction of orbital floor fractures remains surgically challenging due to limited intraoperative visibility and complex anatomy. Inaccurate implant placement often leads to persistent complications and the need for a revision surgery. This study evaluated the clinical accuracy and re-operation rates of a preoperative 3D-printed model-assisted technique compared to the conventional intraoperative free-hand mesh bending method. Methods: A comparative ambispective study was conducted on 74 patients with isolated orbital floor fractures. The control group (n = 34, retrospective) underwent reconstruction using intraoperatively formed titanium meshes. In the study group (n = 40, prospective), patient-specific 3D-printed models, created by mirroring the healthy contralateral orbit, were used for preoperative mesh adaptation. Primary outcomes included the rate of revision surgery due to implant malposition, changes in orbital volume, and postoperative diplopia. Results: The 3D model group demonstrated a significantly lower rate of revision surgery compared to the control group. In the retrospective group, 5 patients (15%) required reoperation due to implant malposition, whereas no patients (0%) in the prospective 3D group required secondary intervention (p = 0.017). While both techniques effectively restored orbital volume, the 3D group showed greater volumetric precision with less variance. The mean volume difference in the affected orbit was 3078 ± 2204 mm3 in the control group, compared to 2390 ± 1893 mm3 in the study 3D group. At the 6-month follow-up, persistent diplopia was observed in 12% of the control group compared to only 3% in the study group. Conclusions: The use of in-house 3D-printed models for preoperative mesh forming significantly enhances surgical precision and eliminates the need for revision surgery due to implant malposition. This workflow offers a cost-effective, predictable, and accessible alternative to expensive patient-specific implants (PSIs) or intraoperative navigation systems, improving patient safety and long-term clinical outcomes.