Maxillofacial reconstruction with prefabricated osseous free flaps: a 3-year experience with 24 patients.

Craniofacial Center Hirslanden, Aarau, Switzerland.
Plastic &amp Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.54). 10/2003; 112(3):748-57. DOI: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000069709.89719.79
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Between January of 1998 and May of 2002, 25 prefabricated osseous free flaps (23 fibula and two iliac crest flaps) were transferred in 24 patients to repair maxillary (six flaps) or mandibular (eight flaps) defects after tumor resection, severe maxillary (four flaps) or mandibular (one flap) atrophy (Cawood VI), maxillary (one flap) or mandibular (three flaps) defects after gunshot injury, and maxillary (two flaps) defects after traffic accidents. Prefabrication included insertion of dental implants, positioned with a drilling template in a preplanned position, and split-thickness grafting. Drilling template construction was based on the prosthetic planning. The template determined the position of the implants and the site and angulation of osteotomies, if necessary. The mean delay between prefabrication and flap transfer was 6 weeks (range, 4 to 8 weeks). While the flap was harvested, a bar construction with overdentures was mounted onto the implants. The overdentures were used as an occlusal key for exact three-dimensional positioning of the graft within the defect. The bar construction also helped to stabilize the horseshoe shape of the graft. The follow-up period ranged from 2 months to 4 years (mean, 21 months), during which time two total and three partial flap losses occurred. One total loss was due to thrombosis of the flap veins during the delay period, whereas the other total loss was caused by spasm of the peroneal artery. Two partial losses were due to oversegmentation of the flaps with necrosis of the distal fragment, whereas one partial loss was caused by disruption of the vessel from the distal part. Of the 90 implants that were inserted into the prefabricated flaps during the study period, 10 were lost in conjunction with flap failure; of the remaining 80 implants, four were lost during the observation period, for a success rate of 95 percent. Flap prefabrication based on prosthetic planning offers a powerful tool for various reconstructive problems in the maxillofacial area. Although it involves a two-stage procedure, the time for complete rehabilitation is shorter than with conventional procedures.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional prosthesis is generally inapplicable following reconstruction with free fibula flaps (FFF) due to impaired bone and soft tissue conditions, and rehabilitation via enossal implants in FFF is relatively novel. This retrospective study aimed to document the surgical aspects of this option and to describe related supplementary procedures that can help optimise the definitive outcome. One hundred nineteen implants were inserted within FFFs in 37 patients (mean age 51.8 ± 10.6 years), who underwent ablative surgery of the maxilla (3) and mandible (34). In a cross-sectional study design with a follow-up period of 3-172 months, we analysed types and configurations of graft design, patterns of implant insertion and methods for prosthetic rehabilitation as well as primary stability and survival rate. Most patients underwent jaw reconstruction using a mono-barrel FFF (14 osseous and 18 osteocutaneous/osteomyocutaneous); three patients received double-barrel reconstruction of the mandible. Three patients with maxillary defects were reconstructed using mono-barrel grafts (one osteocutaneous and two prefabricated grafts). Pre-prosthetic procedures were required in 23 patients to optimise conditions in the peri-implant soft tissue. Iliac bone onlay graft was used in six patients to achieve appropriate vertical height in mono-barrel grafts. A total of 10 implants in eight patients (five irradiated) could not be loaded. All other implants showed stable osseous integration and satisfactory peri-implant soft tissue conditions. Masticatory rehabilitation can be achieved using enossal implants inserted in FFF. Special requirements can be met through selection of an appropriate graft configuration and optimal implant positioning. Supplementary pre-prosthetic procedures are usually required as they improve long-term survival. This overview provides a reliable and comprehensive algorithm for standard implant-borne rehabilitation of patients with fibula grafts.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 05/2014; · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The free fibula osteoseptocutaneous flap is the standard for reconstruction of extensive mandibular defects. The procedure must be precise to achieve the required functional and aesthetic results. The aim of the present study was to calculate retrospectively the exact differences in surgical outcome based on preoperative and postoperative Computed Tomography data sets. Ten patients with unilateral reconstructions of the mandible with a fibula based on conventional planning were analyzed quantitatively, applying mirroring techniques with direct comparison of the theoretically optimum with the actual reconstruction. The results showed that there is a significant discrepancy between what is actually achieved and the theoretical optimum. The result of the present retrospective analysis shows that there is room for further improvement of the outcome in complex mandible reconstruction cases.
    Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery. 06/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to establish surgical guiding techniques for completing mandible lesion resection and reconstruction of the mandible defect area with fibula sections in one surgery by applying additive manufacturing technology, which can reduce the surgical duration and enhance the surgical accuracy and success rate.
    BioMedical Engineering OnLine 05/2014; 13(1):57. · 1.61 Impact Factor