Yi Shen1, Jun Li1, Andrew Ow2, Liang Wang1, Ming-Ming Lv1, Jian Sun3. 1. Department of Oral Maxillofacial - Head Neck Oncology, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. 2. Discipline of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Jurong Health Services, Singapore. 3. Department of Oral Maxillofacial - Head Neck Oncology, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: jianjian60@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical outcomes and evaluated the reconstructive strategies in patients who underwent secondary maxillary reconstruction with a vascularized fibula osteomyocutaneous flap (VFOF). METHODS: From May of 2001 to June of 2014, 34 patients who underwent secondary maxillary reconstruction with VFOF, with or without titanium mesh, were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups of maxillary reconstruction, according to different planning and treatment strategies. In Group 1, presurgical planning was achieved using three-dimensional stereomodeling (n = 12). In Group 2, virtual surgical planning was performed and guided templates were produced (n = 22). The differences in the preoperative planning, intraoperative technique, postoperative complications, and long-term results between the two groups were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the differences between the two groups and the risk factors for prognosis. RESULTS: Similar and accurate secondary maxillary reconstructions were successfully performed in Group 1 and 2. Postoperative complications were reported in 8 patients in Group 1 and 11 patients in Group 2. Complications were reported in patients who underwent radiotherapy. The incidence of postoperative complications in Group 2 were lower than that in Group 1 with the exception of midfacial collapse (P > 0.05). The long-term results of some patients with class 3 defects were not satisfactory because of midfacial collapse and lower eyelid ectropion. Stepwise regression analysis showed radiotherapy to be a risk factor for prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term results of secondary maxillary reconstruction were reported to be acceptable in our study. Radiotherapy was the risk factor for prognosis in secondary maxillary reconstruction. On the basis of these results, we highly recommend our strategy for secondary maxillary reconstruction. Good functional results could be achieved after the accurate restoration of maxillary alveolar ridge with several fibular segments using virtual surgical planning and dental restoration.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical outcomes and evaluated the reconstructive strategies in patients who underwent secondary maxillary reconstruction with a vascularized fibula osteomyocutaneous flap (VFOF). METHODS: From May of 2001 to June of 2014, 34 patients who underwent secondary maxillary reconstruction with VFOF, with or without titanium mesh, were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups of maxillary reconstruction, according to different planning and treatment strategies. In Group 1, presurgical planning was achieved using three-dimensional stereomodeling (n = 12). In Group 2, virtual surgical planning was performed and guided templates were produced (n = 22). The differences in the preoperative planning, intraoperative technique, postoperative complications, and long-term results between the two groups were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the differences between the two groups and the risk factors for prognosis. RESULTS: Similar and accurate secondary maxillary reconstructions were successfully performed in Group 1 and 2. Postoperative complications were reported in 8 patients in Group 1 and 11 patients in Group 2. Complications were reported in patients who underwent radiotherapy. The incidence of postoperative complications in Group 2 were lower than that in Group 1 with the exception of midfacial collapse (P > 0.05). The long-term results of some patients with class 3 defects were not satisfactory because of midfacial collapse and lower eyelid ectropion. Stepwise regression analysis showed radiotherapy to be a risk factor for prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term results of secondary maxillary reconstruction were reported to be acceptable in our study. Radiotherapy was the risk factor for prognosis in secondary maxillary reconstruction. On the basis of these results, we highly recommend our strategy for secondary maxillary reconstruction. Good functional results could be achieved after the accurate restoration of maxillary alveolar ridge with several fibular segments using virtual surgical planning and dental restoration.