Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2023
Management of Through-and-Through Oromandibular Defects after Segmental Mandibulectomy with Fibula Osteocutaneous Flap.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mathews Saumya, Jaiswal Dushyant, Yadav Prabha, Shankhdhar Vinay Kant, Hadgaonkar Sumit, Mantri Mayur, Bindu Ameya, Pilania Vineet, Mohammad Arbab, Escandón Joseph M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oromandibular defects involving the external skin are a reconstructive challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the fibula osteocutaneous free flap (FOCFF) for through-and-through oromandibular defects by comparing the surgical outcomes and complications of different techniques to close the external skin defect.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent reconstruction of through-and-through oromandibular defects after oncologic segmental mandibulectomy between January 2011 and December 2014. Five groups were analyzed according to the method of external skin coverage: primary closure, locoregional flaps, deepithelialized double-skin paddle FOCFF (deEpi-FOCFF), division of the skin paddle for double-skin paddle FOCFF (div-FOCFF), and a simultaneous second free flap. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes along with complications were analyzed between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 323 patients were included. The mean total defect area requiring a simultaneous second free flap was larger in comparison to other groups (p < 0.001). Reconstructions performed with div-FOCFF had a higher number of perforators per flap when compared with deEpi-FOCFF (p < 0.001). External defects closed with another free flap exhibited higher intraoperative time for the reconstructive segment in comparison to other groups (p < 0.05). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (24%, p = 0.129).
CONCLUSION: The FFOCF is a reliable alternative to harvesting multiple simultaneous free flaps for through-and-through oromandibular defects. The authors recommend appropriate curation of the surgical plan based on individual patient characteristics and reconstructive requirements.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent reconstruction of through-and-through oromandibular defects after oncologic segmental mandibulectomy between January 2011 and December 2014. Five groups were analyzed according to the method of external skin coverage: primary closure, locoregional flaps, deepithelialized double-skin paddle FOCFF (deEpi-FOCFF), division of the skin paddle for double-skin paddle FOCFF (div-FOCFF), and a simultaneous second free flap. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes along with complications were analyzed between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 323 patients were included. The mean total defect area requiring a simultaneous second free flap was larger in comparison to other groups (p < 0.001). Reconstructions performed with div-FOCFF had a higher number of perforators per flap when compared with deEpi-FOCFF (p < 0.001). External defects closed with another free flap exhibited higher intraoperative time for the reconstructive segment in comparison to other groups (p < 0.05). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (24%, p = 0.129).
CONCLUSION: The FFOCF is a reliable alternative to harvesting multiple simultaneous free flaps for through-and-through oromandibular defects. The authors recommend appropriate curation of the surgical plan based on individual patient characteristics and reconstructive requirements.