4.5 Article

Surgical reconstruction of maxilla and midface: Clinical outcome and factors relating to postoperative complications

期刊

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2004.09.001

关键词

reconstructive surgery; maxillary defect; dental rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of different techniques of repairing maxillary and midfacial defects according to their extent. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, 47 maxillary reconstructions in 41 patients were reviewed. Evaluation took place an average of 4.5 years postoperatively. The cases were divided into three groups according to the classification of Brown et al. (Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40: 183-190, 2002): Group 1: maxillary defects limited to one side (Class 2a); Group 2: bimaxillary defects (Classes 2b and 2c); Group 3: maxillary/midfacial defects (Classes 3 and 4). Most reconstructions were performed with non-vascularized bone grafts in the first patient group, whilst microvascular soft tissue flaps combined with free bone grafts were used in the second group, and re-vascularized osteocutaneous flaps in the third group. Results: Overall flap survival was 79%. Dental reconstruction was successfully completed in 31 cases (66%). Postoperative infection leading to transplant loss was the main reason for failure. This complication was specifically associated with temporal osteomuscular flaps (50%) and free iliac crest grafts (61%) and was related to the extent of the defect. In the reconstructive methods evaluated here, associated radiotherapy had a minor influence on the occurrence of complications. Conclusion: Non-vascularized iliac bone grafts should be used sparingly in Class 2b, even in combination with microvascular flaps. There is a very limited indication for these grafts in Classes 3 and 4. Temporal osteomuscular flaps do not seem to be suitable for maxillary reconstruction. (C) 2004 European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据