| Literature DB >> 34938659 |
Tarek Ismail1,2, Alexander Haumer1,2, Alexander Lunger1, Rik Osinga1,3, Alexandre Kaempfen1,2, Franziska Saxer4, Anke Wixmerten2, Sylvie Miot2, Florian Thieringer5, Joerg Beinemann5, Christoph Kunz5, Claude Jaquiéry5, Thomas Weikert6, Felix Kaul6, Arnaud Scherberich1,2, Dirk J Schaefer1,3, Ivan Martin2.
Abstract
The reconstruction of complex midface defects is a challenging clinical scenario considering the high anatomical, functional, and aesthetic requirements. In this study, we proposed a surgical treatment to achieve improved oral rehabilitation and anatomical and functional reconstruction of a complex defect of the maxilla with a vascularized, engineered composite graft. The patient was a 39-year-old female, postoperative after left hemimaxillectomy for ameloblastic carcinoma in 2010 and tumor-free at the 5-year oncological follow-up. The left hemimaxillary defect was restored in a two-step approach. First, a composite graft was ectopically engineered using autologous stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells seeded on an allogenic devitalized bone matrix. The resulting construct was further loaded with bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2), wrapped within the latissimus dorsi muscle, and pedicled with an arteriovenous (AV) bundle. Subsequently, the prefabricated graft was orthotopically transferred into the defect site and revascularized through microvascular surgical techniques. The prefabricated graft contained vascularized bone tissue embedded within muscular tissue. Despite unexpected resorption, its orthotopic transfer enabled restoration of the orbital floor, separation of the oral and nasal cavities, and midface symmetry and allowed the patient to return to normal diet as well as to restore normal speech and swallowing function. These results remained stable for the entire follow-up period of 2 years. This clinical case demonstrates the safety and the feasibility of composite graft engineering for the treatment of complex maxillary defects. As compared to the current gold standard of autologous tissue transfer, this patient's benefits included decreased donor site morbidity and improved oral rehabilitation. Bone resorption of the construct at the ectopic prefabrication site still needs to be further addressed to preserve the designed graft size and shape.Entities:
Keywords: bone–soft tissue interface; complex 3D bone defect; graft prefabrication; regenerative surgery; vascularized composite graft
Year: 2021 PMID: 34938659 PMCID: PMC8685218 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.775136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Midface defect, immediate temporary reconstruction, and two-step patient specific planning. (A) Intraoperative aspect of exposed ameloblastic carcinoma of the left hemimaxilla prior to resection. (B) Left hemimaxillectomy specimen with preservation of midface soft tissue and missing inner nasal lining (mucosa). (C) Intraoperative situation after PEEK implantation with obturator prosthesis. (D) Ectopic prevascularization by surgical insertion of an arteriovenous (AV) bundle (serratus branch of the thoracodorsal vessel) and wrapping of the construct into a split latissimus muscle. (E) CAD-CAM reconstruction on the patients CT scan showing the customized Tutoplast® scaffold with the tunnel planned for the serratus AV bundle and its branching after implantation.
Figure 2Graft prefabrication and histological analysis (bone biopsy at moment of transfer at week 32) and volume assessment over time. (A) 3D scaffold of devitalized bone manufactured to match the patient’s defect size and shape and seeded with SVF cells and BMP-2. (B) Ectopic implantation with serratus AV bundle. (C, D) Construct with vascular pedicle before and after being wrapped in split latissimus muscle. (E, F) High magnification of representative figures of bone biopsy after staining with Masson Trichrome. The Tutoplast® scaffold is characterized by purple staining, representing mature bone and cellular lacunae (white arrowheads), showing devitalized bone tissue. Newly formed bone tissue, represented by light green color, is deposited on the Tutoplast® scaffold and contains nuclei (pink arrowheads). The yellow dashed line delineates the original scaffold material and apposition of newly formed bone. A vessel (red circle) demonstrates that the scaffold is vascularized. (G) Overview figure shows appositional bone growth on the Tutoplast® scaffold (asterisk). Osteocytes (arrows) are visible in the newly formed bone. The proportion of scaffold vs. new bone formation is close to 50:50. A blood vessel is present within the newly formed bone (yellow circle). Osteoclasts (full arrowheads) fringe the Tutoplast® scaffold (asterisks), which shows clear signs of degradation at site of interaction. There is no major osteoclast infiltration at the level of the newly formed apposed bone and no sign of degradation visible. (H) CT-reconstruction and volume calculation show volume decrease over time.
Figure 3Longitudinal assessment of vascularization and bone formation. Transversal images of a golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) MRI showing the perfusion of the engineered construct adjacent to the left ribcage over time as well as corresponding signal-time curves at 1 week (A) and at 6 weeks (B). The Maxilla construct is highlighted by white rectangles. Signal intensity in relation to t = 0 (injection of contrast agent) on the Y-axis, time in seconds on the X-axis. Violet region of interest (ROI) located in the construct, blue ROI located in the left M. subscapularis in situ and yellow ROI encompassing the AV bundle. Orange ROI indicates M. latissimus dorsi flap covering the construct. M. subscapularis was used as a reference for physiological vascularization in this area. Planar images (C) and SPECT and SPECT/CT images (D) after 6 weeks of the bone scintigraphy, showing strong DPD uptake in the construct, indicating bone turnover and vitality of the construct. In a region-of-interest (ROI) analysis of the maxilla construct at its largest diameter in comparison to the sternum (as a bone with similar structure/size). (E) VRT (volume rendering technique) from the SPECT illustrates the location of the prefabricated construct.
Figure 4Orthotopic graft transfer and follow-up imaging. Free tissue transfer of the engineered bone-soft tissue composite was performed 9 months after the first step of prefabrication. (A) Harvesting of the composite graft, consisting of wrapped latissimus dorsi muscle and the engineered vital bone germ and the AV-bundle. (B) Transfacial incision. Exposure of the defect after removal of PEEK implant. (C, D) Tabula externa (white arrows) struts served as a substitute for missing bone parts in order to reconstruct the infraorbital rim. (E) 3D rendering with symmetric soft tissue coverage. Follow-up CT-imaging 24 months after the orthotopic transfer of the graft from (F) coronary, (G) sagittal, and (H) transverse views. The arrows point to the reconstructed bone tissue present after 24 months.
Comparison of the functional outcome between standard of care with autologous tissue transfer and experimental procedure.
| Outcome measures | Experimental procedure (described case) | Standard procedure (%) [Cordeiro PG ( | Standard procedure (%) [Moreno MA ( | Standard procedure (%) [Sweeny AR ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speech | ||||
| Normal | ✓ | 50 | 47.5 | |
| Nearly normal | x | 34.1 | 40 | |
| Intelligible | x | 13.6 | 7.5 | |
| Unintelligible | x | 2.3 | 5 | |
| Diet | ||||
| Unrestricted | ✓ | 52 | 55 | |
| Soft | x | 42 | 35 | |
| Liquids | x | 6 | 5 | |
| Feeding tube | x | 2 | 5 | |
| Globe Position and function | ||||
| Normal | ✓ | 23.8 | ||
| Dystopia | x | 4.8 | ||
| Diplopia | x | 19 | 8 | |
| Enophthalmos | x | 4.8 | ||
| Ectropion | x | 47.6 | 50 | |
| Epiphora | x | 29 | ||
| Exposure keratopathy | x | 25 | ||
| Lagopthalmos | x | 16 | ||
| Fistula | x | 8 | ||
| Midface deformity | x | 4 | ||
| Oral competence | ||||
| Yes | ✓ | 91.7 | ||
| No | x | 8.3 | ||
| Drooling | ✓ | |||
| Microstomia | ||||
| Yes | x | 25 | ||
| No | ✓ | 75 | ||
| Aesthetic results | ||||
| Excellent | ✓ | 58.6 | ||
| Good | x | 35.7 | ||
| Fair | x | 5.7 | ||
| Poor | x | 0 |
Figure 5Photographic documentation after reconstruction shows symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing result.