| Literature DB >> 35127535 |
Michael Knitschke1, Anna Katrin Baumgart1, Christina Bäcker1, Christian Adelung2, Fritz Roller2, Daniel Schmermund1, Sebastian Böttger1, Philipp Streckbein1, Hans-Peter Howaldt1, Sameh Attia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) for jaw reconstruction with free fibula flap (FFF) became a routine procedure and requires computed tomography angiography (CTA) for preoperative evaluation of the lower limbs vascular system and the bone. The aim of the study was to assess whether the distribution and density of periosteal branches (PB) and septo-cutaneous perforators (SCP) of the fibular artery have an impact on flap success.Entities:
Keywords: CTA; fibula free flap; flap failure; head and neck tumor; jaw reconstruction; virtual surgical planning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35127535 PMCID: PMC8807634 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.821851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Workflow of the present study. A total number of n = 72 computed tomography angiography (CTA) DICOM-datasets of virtual planned jaw reconstructions with a free fibula flap were included in the investigation. Findings on the vascular infra-popliteal branching pattern, stenoses, and distribution and density of periosteal branches and septo-cutaneous perforators of the fibular artery were matched with flap surgery outcome.
Figure 256 years old male with an infiltrative growth of oral squamous cell carcinoma (T4) in regio 38 (ID 18 in ). (A) Extension of osseous destruction in OPT and (B) cinematic volume rendering CT reconstruction.
Figure 4(A) Final molded bi-segmental composite fibula flap and (B) neo-mandible. Additional triangular free bone transplant to smooth the contour of neo-mandible’s jawline. Finally, total flap loss occurred in this case. The surgical revision revealed a combined arterial and venous thrombosis.
Figure 5Sample of n = 72 virtual planned jaw reconstructions. Matching virtually planned parameters, CTA detected vessels (PB and SCP), and surgical outcome. All position marks (x-axis) are given in centimeters.
Figure 3(A) CTA scan (axial plane) of the donor site. Yellow lines connect found PB and SCP with virtual surgical planning. (B) Final virtual surgical planning for bi-segmental mandible reconstruction with free fibula flap. (C) Yellow lines connect corresponding vessels with the operating field. (D) Applied cutting guide, performed osteotomies, and shaped neo-condyle. Case is ID 18 in . In CTA assessment were 5 PB and one SCP of the FA at donor site recorded. Each fibula flap segment was supplied by one PB, while three were located proximal to the designed flap. The CTA-based SCP position was in the middle of the skin paddle in the proximal fibula flap segment. The radiological examination of the FA was without pathological findings (type I-B: infra-popliteal branching pattern, which means trifurcation of the popliteal artery in ATA, PTA, and FA). Overall, there were no radiological reservations or restrictions to surgery. shows that there was a discrepancy between the radiological and the operative findings. The number of SCP was at least 4 (green arrows).
CTA assessment for fibular bone and vascular system parameters of the study sample.
|
| Donor site ( | Non-donor site ( | Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibula length, mean (mm) ± SD | 373.9 ± 30.2 | 372.8 ± 30.9 | 142 | 0.829 |
| Fibula bone anomalies | ||||
| Fracture | 0 | 1 | 1 | – |
| Branching pattern of the calf ( | ||||
| Regular (I-A to II-C) | 72 | 68 | 140 | |
| Absent ATA (III-A) | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
| Absent PTA (III-B) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.119 |
| Stenoses | ||||
| ATA | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| PTA | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
| FA | 5 | 6 | 11 | 0.670 |
| Length of TTF, mean (mm) ± SD | 32.6 ± 12.9 ( | 32.5 ± 14.6 ( | 128 | 0.965 |
| Diameter of TTF, mean (mm) ± SD | 4.13 ± 0.95 ( | 4.16 ± 1.0 ( | 128 | 0.862 |
| Length of FA, mean (mm) ± SD | 244.9 ± 36.9 | 243.0 ± 43.3 | 142 | 0.777 |
| Diameter of FA, mean (mm) ± SD | 3.12 ± 0.79 | 3.21 ± 0.78 | 142 | 0.493 |
| Overall found SCP, | 101 (47.4%) | 112 (52.6%) | 213 | |
| Diameter SCP, mean (mm) ± SD | 0.93 ± 0.28 | 0.93 ± 0.32 | 0.93 ± 0.30 | 1.0 |
| Mean SCP per fibula (mm) ± SD | 1.39 ± 1.03 | 1.52 ± 1.23 | 1.40 ± 1.01 | 0.407 |
| Overall found PB, | 185 (51.2%) | 176 (48.8%) | 361 | |
| Diameter PB, mean (mm) ± SD | 0.87 ± 0.24 | 0.87 ± 0.26 | 0.87 ± 0.56 | 1.0 |
| Mean PB per fibula (mm) ± SD | 2.53 ± 1.60 | 2.42 ± 1.60 | 2.47 ± 1.54 | 0.514 |
SD, standard deviation; ATA, anterior tibial artery; FA, fibular artery; PB, periosteal branch; PTA, posterior tibial artery; SCP, septo-cutaneous perforator; TTF, truncus tibiofibularis.
Infrapopliteal arterial branching variations were classified by Kim (51) of the investigated sample (n = 144).
| Type | Donor site ( | Non-donor site ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| I-A | 67 (93.1) | 61 (84.7) | 128 (88.9) |
| I-B | 2 (2.8) | 1 (1.4) | 3 (2.1) |
| I-C | 1 (1.4) | – | 1 (0.7) |
| II-A | 1 (1.4) | 2 (2.8) | 3 (2.1) |
| II-B | 1 (1.4) | 4 (5.6) | 5 (3.6) |
| II-C | – | – | – |
| III-A | – | 2 (2.8) | 2 (1.4) |
| III-B | – | 2 (2.8) | 2 (1.4) |
| III-C | – | – | – |
Demographic and surgery-associated parameters.
|
| Flap success | Partial flap failure | Total flap failure |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59 (82.0%) | 4 (5.5%) | 9 (12.5%) | ||
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 58.4 ± 15.6 | 49.8 ± 20.6 | 64.9 ± 8.0 | 0.338 |
| Gender, n (%) | ||||
| Male | 33 (44.1) | 4 (100.0) | 7 (77.8) | |
| Female | 26 (55.9) | 0 | 2 (22.2) | 0.150 |
| Body weight (kg), mean ± SD | 71.7 ± 15.7 | 92.3 ± 10.6 | 74.6 ± 15.2 | *0.012 |
| Body height (cm), mean ± SD | 169.9 ± 10.0 | 179.3 ± 3.9 | 176.8 ± 11.3 | 0.067 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD | 24.7 ± 5.2 | 28.8 ± 3.6 | 23.6 ± 4.8 | 0.189 |
| ASA-score, n (%) | ||||
| 1 | 3 (5.1) | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 31 (52.5) | 2 (50.0) | 5 (55.6) | |
| 3 | 23 (39.0) | 2 (50.0) | 4 (44.4) | |
| 4 | 2 (3.4) | 0 | 0 | 0.973 |
| Reconstruction site | ||||
| Maxilla | 15 (25.4) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (22.2) | |
| Mandibula | 44 (74.6) | 3 (75.0) | 7 (77.8) | 1.0 |
| FFF type, n (%) | ||||
|
Composite flap | 51 (86.5) | 3 (75.0) | 7 (77.8) | |
|
Non-composite flap | 8 (13.5) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (22.2) | 0.573 |
| Donor site, n (%) | ||||
|
Left | 22 (37.3) | 0 | 4 (44.4) | |
|
Right | 37 (62.7) | 4 (100.0) | 5 (55.6) | 0.384 |
| Distance to the tip of the fibula (ankle), mean ± SD | ||||
|
60 mm | 6 (10.2) | 0 | 0 | |
|
70 mm | 31 (52.5) | 4 (100.0) | 5 (55.6) | |
|
80 mm | 17 (28.8) | 0 | 2 (22.2) | |
|
90 mm | 5 (8.5) | 0 | 1 (11.1) | |
|
118.9 mm | 0 | 0 | 1 (11.1) | 0.175 |
| Number of segments, n (%) | ||||
|
1 | 15 (25.4) | 1 (25.0) | 4 (44.4) | |
|
2 | 26 (44.1) | 2 (50.0) | 5 (55.6) | |
|
3 | 18 (30.5) | 1 (25.0) | 0 | 0.351 |
| Total transplant length (mm), mean ± SD (range) | ||||
|
1 | 56.1 ± 15.3 (35.0 – 94.9) | 55.0 | 68.1 ± 17.8 (47.3 – 90.2) | 0.458 |
|
2 | 106.6 ± 21.5 (71.0 – 143.6) | 99.8 ± 18.2 (86.9 – 112.6) | 109.9 ± 18.7 (90.5 – 133.1) | 0.804 |
|
3 | 142.3 ± 21.2 (103.7 – 176.3) | 126.7 | – | 0.361 |
| Minimal segment length (mm), mean ± SD (range) | ||||
|
1 | 45.3 ± 16.8 (17.0 – 84.7) | 32.0 | 52.6 ± 12.5 (34.0 – 60.2) | 0.261 |
|
2 | 36.7 ± 14.3 (16.0 – 64.8) | 37.0 ± 14.7 (28.4 – 59.0) | 40.3 ± 16.8 (22.7 ± 73.0) | 0.926 |
|
3 | 34.5 ± 14.2 (16.7 – 71.3) | 27.1 ± 6.4 (25.8 – 29.5) | – | 0.650 |
| Maximal segment length (mm), mean ± SD (range) | ||||
|
1 | 53.7 ± 16.4 (29.0 – 91.5) | 52 | 62.2 ± 12.1 (45.0 – 71.5) | 0.464 |
|
2 | 49.4 ± 16.1 (20.0 – 80.2) | 45.1 ± 14.7 (32.9 – 64.5) | 47.2 ± 16.1 (32.3 ± 79.3) | 0.809 |
|
3 | 43.1 ± 13.5 (27.4 – 89.5) | 36.8 ± 2.1 (29.9 – 42.4) | – | 0.508 |
| Length of TTF, mean ± SD (n‡) | 31.3 ± 12.2 (55) | 32.3 ± 11.7 (4) | 40.1 ± 14.9 (8) | ‡0.034 |
BMI, body mass index; FFF, free fibula flap; PB, periosteal branch; SCP, septo-cutaneous perforator; SD, standard deviation; TTF, truncus tibiofibularis; WHD, wound healing disorder. *Significant difference was only found between flap success and partial flap failure group. ‡TTF was only assessed in type I-A branching pattern.
Wound healing disorders of the donor site.
|
| Flap success | Partial flap failure | Total flap failure |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59 (82.0%) | 4 (5.5%) | 9 (12.5%) | ||
| Composite flap, n (%) | ||||
| None | 20 (33.9) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (22.2) | |
| Minor WHD | 11 (18.6) | 0 | 1 (11.1) | |
| Major WHD | 20 (33.9) | 2 (50.0) | 4 (44.4) | |
| Non-composite flap | ||||
| None | 8 (13.6) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (22.2) | 0.523 |
Figure 6Impact of relative distribution of (A) SCP and (B) PB concerning FFF outcome: Complete success, n = 59; Partial flap failure, n = 4; Total flap failure, n = 9. An absolute number of recorded vessel types are noted in the bars. Annotation: All possible SCP were recorded without consideration of including a skin paddle (composite FFF type). FFF, free fibula flap; PB, periosteal branch; SCP, septo-cutaneous perforator.
Absolute (n) and relative (%) number of fibular segments were addressed by at least one periosteal branch (PB) based on preoperative CTA for VSP.
| PB ≥1 per segment (total segments | Flap success 121 (= 59 FFF) | Partial flap failure 8 (= 4 FFF) | Total flap failure 14 (= 9 FFF) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 SFFF, n (%) | 7 (46.7) | 0 | 2 (50.0) |
| 2 SFFF, n (%) | 21 (40.4) | 2 (50.0) | 4 (40.0) |
| 3 SFFF, n (%) | 17 (31.5) | 2 (66.7) | – |
| All, n (%) | 45 (37.2) | 4 (50.0) | 6 (42.9) |
Absolute (n) and relative (%) number of fibula segments of composite FFF, which were addressed by at least one septo-cutaneous perforator (SCP) based on preoperative CTA for VSP.
| SCP ≥1 per segment (total segments | Flap success | Partial flap failure | Total flap failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 109 (= 51 FFF) | 6 (= 3 FFF) | 11 (= 7 FFF) | |
| 1 SFFF, n (%) | 4 (36.4) | 0 | 2 (66.7) |
| 2 SFFF, n (%) | 13 (29.5) | 1 (50.0) | 3 (37.5) |
| 3 SFFF, n (%) | 12 (22.2) | 1 (33.3) | – |
| All, n (%) | 29 (26.6) | 2 (33.3) | 5 (45.4) |
Figure 7Impact of FFF outcome concerning length of fibular bone segments of mono- (1 SFFF), bi- (2 SFFF) or tri-segmental (3 SFFF) flap for achieving jaw reconstruction (left y-axis). The relative number of periosteal branches (PB) per segment (right y-axis) was calculated and superimposed (magenta cross). 1 SFFF flap success: n = 16 vs. total flap failure: n = 4; 2 SFFF flap success: n = 28 vs. n = 5; 3 SFFF flap success: n = 19 vs. n = 0; Amount of observed PB in region of transplanted fibular bone segments n = 66 based on the preoperative CTA.