Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Functional and cosmetic defects in maxillofacial region are caused by various ailments like trauma, neoplasm, developmental, infections and iatrogenic causes. Reconstruction of these defects with free flaps remains the gold standard but demerits like need for surgical expertise and equipment, prolonged duration of surgery, compliance of the patient and increased cost are associated with microvascular reconstruction. Hence reconstruction with nonvascular bone grafts can be considered when defect is nonirradiated and <9 cm and with sufficient soft tissue cover available.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate clinical, radiological outcome and complications encountered with mandibular reconstruction using non vascular fibula graft. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 7 patients who were treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, AP between 2011 and 2013 with histologically proven benign osteolytic lesions of mandible that require a segmental mandibulectomy and primary reconstruction using autogenous non-vascularised fibular graft. The clinical case records of the patients and personal patient assessment forms (Quality of Life Assessment Forms) were analysed. They were recalled every 3rd, 6th and 9th month after surgery for evaluation of clinical, radiological outcome of the graft and complications occurring at recipient and donor sites.
RESULTS: In all the 7 patients, the lower border continuity was maintained except in one where the graft was dislodged. Tongue movements in all the patients were unrestricted. Jaw movements were affected in cases of ramus defects with slight deviation to operated side and reduced mouth opening. Radiological observations revealed no significant changes in 3 months except for slight reduction in graft height. The radioopaque bridging with continuity of lower border of mandible was noticed in 6th month indicating the take of the graft. This was achieved in every case except in one where the graft was lost due to dislodged reconstruction plate. In 9th month the edges of the graft i.e., graft to native mandible junction showed more resorption (3 mm) especially where there is >2 mm of gap. Whereas increase in height of graft in other areas especially in graft to graft junction was seen. Significant graft resorption was seen in two cases. There were no major complications associated with the donor site.
CONCLUSION: Avascular fibula graft although a second choice to vascularised fibula, is a favourable option for mandible defects of 6-10 cm under optimum conditions especially in developing countries where financial and/or surgical resources are limited. An attempt for primary reconstruction with this is never futile as it prevents aesthetic deformity even in the event of failure and thus makes secondary reconstruction easy. However in order to confirm the results a prospective study with large scale of patients is necessary.