Literature DB >> 31033831

Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery.

Robin T Wu1, Alexander T Wilson1, Cyril S Gary1, Derek M Steinbacher1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complete reoperation is defined as undergoing reoperative/repeated jaw osteotomies, in a patient who previously underwent orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe jaw positions at three time-points (before primary and before and after reoperative surgery), (2) investigate factors necessitating reoperation, and (3) outline the technical challenges.
METHODS: Repeated orthognathic surgery cases >1-year out were included. Demographic, radiologic, and perioperative data were compiled. Repeated osteotomies (Le-Fort and/or bilateral split sagittal osteotomy, with or without genioplasty), were compared to their respective primary procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using t tests and z-scores.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included (28.1 years; 71 percent female). Reoperative/repeated surgery was most often needed to address iatrogenic bony malposition and asymmetry. Relapse was a less common indication. Time between reoperative and primary surgery was 14 months. Sagittal discrepancies (p = 0.029) were the most frequent reason for primary orthognathic surgery (e.g., mandibular hypoplasia (p = 0.023). Reoperative/repeated orthognathic was performed for asymmetry (p = 0.014). Repeated procedures used more 3-dimensional planning (p < 0.001), required all three osteotomies (p = 0.034), had longer operative times (p = 0.078), and all required hardware removal (p < 0.001). Anatomical outcomes were good with 100% patient satisfaction at long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative/repeated orthognathic surgery is challenging and underreported in the literature. Whereas primary orthognathic typically addressed sagittal discrepancies, reoperative/repeated osteotomies were needed to correct iatrogenic bone malposition and asymmetries. Challenges include: re-planning, scar burden, need to remove integrated hardware, and repeated osteotomy/fixation. Despite these difficulties, outcomes and patient acceptance were good. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31033831     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005532

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  3 in total

1.  Orthognathic correction and corticobasal implant-supported prostheses as a treatment modality for partial edentulism with mandibular prognathism: A case report and review of literature.

Authors:  Abdelnasir G Ahmad; Motaz Osman; Fadia Awadalkreem
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2022-05-18

2.  Current trends in orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Hyung Joon Seo; Youn-Kyung Choi
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2021-12-20

3.  The outcome of skeletofacial reconstruction with mandibular rotation for management of asymmetric skeletal class III deformity: A three-dimensional computer-assisted investigation.

Authors:  Ting-Yu Wu; Rafael Denadai; Hsiu-Hsia Lin; Cheng-Ting Ho; Lun-Jou Lo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.