Distraction osteogenesis versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction after gunshot injury: socioeconomic and technical comparisons.

BACKGROUND

Since the birth of maxillofacial surgery, ballistic injuries are a real challenge for surgeons. For more than 20 years, fibula free flap (FFF) became the criterion standard for mandibular reconstructions. But FFF is not always the perfect answer for mandibular reconstruction, and a technique named distraction osteogenesis (DO) was raised. The purposes of this study are to estimate the financial cost and reattempt for the patient each techniques in our experience to determine the best-choice criteria for mandibular reconstruction after gunshot injury.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study over the last 15 years, including 15 patients with a mandibular ballistic injury. Ten patients were treated with FFF, and 5 with DO. We evaluated the complications and morbidity encountered with each technique. We also decided to estimate the cost of different rehabilitations, including the cost of the device and hospitalization.

RESULTS

In our study, the global cost of the DO protocol appears as not more expensive than the FFF one. Postoperative complications encountered during the FFF protocols were related to donor-site morbidity. The DO patient had pseudoarthrosis, mucosa irritation, or local infection.

DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrated both the economic and technical interest of DO compared with the FFF for mandibular reconstruction. Thus, nowadays, DO appears as an alternative to the FFF for mandibular reconstruction, the main decisional criterion being the evaluation of the tissues dilapidated during the initial traumatism, but social environment of the patient shall also be considered.