Literature DB >> 11129020

The free vascularized flap and the flap plate options: comparative results of reconstruction of lateral mandibular defects.

T Shpitzer1, P J Gullane, P C Neligan, J C Irish, J E Freeman, M Van den Brekel, E Gur.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Reconstruction of the mandible and oral cavity after segmental resection is a challenging surgical problem. Although osteocutaneous free flaps are generally accepted to be optimal for reconstruction of anterior defects, the need for bony reconstruction for a pure lateral mandibular defect remains controversial. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective study.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of short- and long-term outcomes of three different reconstruction techniques for lateral defects was performed. In total, 57 patients were included, of whom 27 had a plate and pedicled pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF group), 16 had a plate and free radial forearm flap (FRFF group), and 14 had an osteocutaneous free flap. Functionality, flap failure, and complications were scored.
RESULTS: Plates had to be removed in 7 of the 27 patients in the PMMF group and 2 of the 16 in the FRFF group; none of the 14 osteocutaneous free flaps failed. The difference was of borderline statistical significance (P = .055). Longterm functional outcome revealed no statistically significant difference in oral deglutition (P = .76) or in facial contour (P = .36). Oral continence was significantly better in patients in the FRFF group (88%) as compared with the PMMF group (52%) or the osteocutaneous free flap group (43%) (P = .02). On the other hand, the results for speech favored the osteocutaneous free flap group; 13 of 14 patients (92.9%) had a normal score compared with 12 of 16 patients (75%) in the FRFF group and 17 of 27 (63%) in the PMMF group. However, this represented a borderline statistically significant result (P = .06).
CONCLUSIONS: For lateral mandibular defects, the osteocutaneous free flap is reliable and durable in the long term. However, in a selected group of patients either of the two flap-plate options is a viable reconstructive option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11129020     DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200012000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  6 in total

Review 1.  Functional reconstruction of the oral cavity.

Authors:  Peter C Neligan; Patrick J Gullane; Ralph W Gilbert
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Reconstruction of mandibular defects.

Authors:  Harvey Chim; Christopher J Salgado; Samir Mardini; Hung-Chi Chen
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.314

3.  Surgical factors associated with patient-reported quality of life outcomes after free flap reconstruction of the oral cavity.

Authors:  Joaquin E Jimenez; Marci Lee Nilsen; William E Gooding; Jennifer L Anderson; Nayel I Khan; Leila J Mady; Tamara Wasserman-Wincko; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Seungwon Kim; Robert L Ferris; Mario G Solari; Mark W Kubik; Jonas T Johnson; Shaum Sridharan
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 5.337

4.  Oromandibular reconstruction: the history, operative options and strategies, and our experience.

Authors:  Pao-Yuan Lin; Kevin C Lin; Seng-Feng Jeng
Journal:  ISRN Surg       Date:  2011-12-12

Review 5.  Reconstructive Surgery for Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Matthew M Hanasono
Journal:  Adv Med       Date:  2014-11-09

6.  3D printed models in mandibular reconstruction with bony free flaps.

Authors:  Banaszewski Jacek; Pabiszczak Maciej; Pastusiak Tomasz; Buczkowska Agata; Kuczko Wiesław; Wichniarek Radosław; Górski Filip
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 3.896

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.