Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up.
Surgical treatment of cancers of the oral cavity often requires resection of the mandible, which sacrifices continuity, thereby implying considerable loss of function and aesthetics. The aim of the present study was to compare different methods of mandibular reconstruction for long-term results, complications, and factors associated with failure. During the 10-year period (1995-2005), 102 patients (73 men and 29 women, mean age 55 years, range 11-83) had a continuity resection of the mandible as described by Jewer et al. as follows: lateral continuity defect (n=53), central/lateral continuity defect (n=24), lateral/central/lateral continuity defect (n=14), central continuity defect (n=6), hemimandibular continuity defect (n=4) and central/hemimandibular continuity defect (n=1). The gap in the mandible was bridged with a titanium reconstruction plate in 73 patients, four of whom required a temporomandibular joint prosthesis. In 29 patients the mandibles were reconstructed with free autologous bone grafts fixed with miniplates. The overall 1-year success rate was 64%; 66% for the 73 patients who had miniplate/bone fixation and 63% in the 29 whose defects were bridged with a reconstruction plate. Complications were associated with the reconstruction plate in 39%. The most common complications were extraoral exposure (16%), intraoral exposure (10%), loose osteosynthesis screws (5%), fractures of the reconstruction plate (5%), and extra/intraoral exposure (1%). All fractures were noted at least 6 months postoperatively. There was no increased risk (p=0.67) depending on the osteosynthesis device used (miniplate or reconstruction plate). The risk of failure of the reconstruction plate was significantly higher in men (p=0.002) and smokers (p=0.004), whereas no increased risk was apparent for the anatomical site of the defect. Radiation reduced the 1-year success rate from 64% to 45% but not significantly so (p=0.67). There were no significant differences between the reconstruction methods. Alloplastic reconstruction devices are the treatment of choice for many patients.
Maurer
Peter
P
Department of Oral and Plastic Maxillofacial Surgery, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. peter.maurer@rub.de <peter.maurer@rub.de>
Eckert
Alexander W
AW
Kriwalsky
Marcus S
MS
Schubert
Johannes
J
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000428:Alcohol Drinking; D001860:Bone Plates; D016025:Bone Transplantation; D002294:Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000601:surgery; D002648:Child; D016371:Cranial Irradiation; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D053208:Kaplan-Meier Estimate; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible / Q000601:surgery*; D008339:Mandibular Neoplasms / Q000534:rehabilitation* / Q000601:surgery; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D012307:Risk Factors; D012907:Smoking; D017211:Treatment Failure; D055815:Young Adult