Brian P Swendseid1, Dylan F Roden2, Swar Vimawala3, Tony Richa3, Larissa Sweeny4, Richard A Goldman3, Adam Luginbuhl3, Ryan N Heffelfinger3, Shachika Khanna5, Joseph M Curry3. 1. Thomas Jefferson University, Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: brian.swendseid@jefferson.edu. 2. Rutgers University, Department of Otolaryngology, Newark, NJ, USA. 3. Thomas Jefferson University, Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Louisiana State University Health Science Center, Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, New Orleans, LA, USA. 5. Thomas Jefferson University, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reconstruction of the midface has many inherent challenges, including orbital support, skull base reconstruction, optimizing midface projection, separation of the nasal cavity and dental rehabilitation. Subscapular system free flaps (SF) have sufficient bone stock to support complex reconstruction and the option of separate soft tissue components. This study analyzes the effect of virtual surgical planning (VSP) in SF for midface on subsite reconstruction, bone segment contact and anatomic position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with midface defects that underwent SF reconstruction at a single tertiary care institution. RESULTS: Nine cases with VSP were compared to fourteen cases without VSP. VSP was associated with a higher number of successfully reconstructed subunits (5.9 vs 4.2, 95% CI of mean difference 0.31-3.04, p = 0.018), a higher number of successful bony contact between segments (2.2 vs 1.4, 95% CI of mean difference 0.0-1.6, p = 0.050), and a higher percent of segments in anatomic position (100% vs 71%, 95% CI of mean difference 2-55%, p = 0.035). When postoperative bone position after VSP reconstruction was compared to preoperative scans, the difference in anteroposterior, vertical and lateral projection compared to the preoperative 'ideal' bone position was <1 cm in 82% of measurements. There were no flap losses. CONCLUSION: VSP may augment SF reconstruction of the midface by allowing for improved subunit reconstruction, bony segment contact and anatomically correct bone segment positioning. VSP can be a useful adjunct for complex midface reconstruction and the benefits should be weighed against cost.
OBJECTIVES: Reconstruction of the midface has many inherent challenges, including orbital support, skull base reconstruction, optimizing midface projection, separation of the nasal cavity and dental rehabilitation. Subscapular system free flaps (SF) have sufficient bone stock to support complex reconstruction and the option of separate soft tissue components. This study analyzes the effect of virtual surgical planning (VSP) in SF for midface on subsite reconstruction, bone segment contact and anatomic position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with midface defects that underwent SF reconstruction at a single tertiary care institution. RESULTS: Nine cases with VSP were compared to fourteen cases without VSP. VSP was associated with a higher number of successfully reconstructed subunits (5.9 vs 4.2, 95% CI of mean difference 0.31-3.04, p = 0.018), a higher number of successful bony contact between segments (2.2 vs 1.4, 95% CI of mean difference 0.0-1.6, p = 0.050), and a higher percent of segments in anatomic position (100% vs 71%, 95% CI of mean difference 2-55%, p = 0.035). When postoperative bone position after VSP reconstruction was compared to preoperative scans, the difference in anteroposterior, vertical and lateral projection compared to the preoperative 'ideal' bone position was <1 cm in 82% of measurements. There were no flap losses. CONCLUSION: VSP may augment SF reconstruction of the midface by allowing for improved subunit reconstruction, bony segment contact and anatomically correct bone segment positioning. VSP can be a useful adjunct for complex midface reconstruction and the benefits should be weighed against cost.
Authors: Chihiro Matsui; Joseph M Escandón; Arbab Mohammad; Takakuni Tanaka; Masashi Sasaki; May Me Myo; Le Yu Mon; Yi Yi Cho Thein; Hiroshi Mizuno Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-06-15
Authors: Raúl Antúnez-Conde; José Ignacio Salmerón; Alberto Díez-Montiel; Marc Agea; Dafne Gascón; Ángela Sada; Ignacio Navarro Cuéllar; Manuel Tousidonis; Santiago Ochandiano; Gema Arenas; Carlos Navarro Cuéllar Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Gustaaf J C van Baar; Kitty Schipper; Tymour Forouzanfar; Lars Leeuwrik; Henri A H Winters; Angela Ridwan-Pramana; Frank K J Leusink Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.241