Loading…

Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up

Abstract 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 res...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 2010-03, Vol.48 (2), p.100-104
Main Authors: Maurer, Peter, Eckert, Alexander W, Kriwalsky, Marcus S, Schubert, Johannes
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23
container_end_page 104
container_issue 2
container_start_page 100
container_title British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery
container_volume 48
creator Maurer, Peter
Eckert, Alexander W
Kriwalsky, Marcus S
Schubert, Johannes
description Abstract 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.07.005
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733280519</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0266435609003489</els_id><sourcerecordid>733280519</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV9r1jAUh4Mo7t3mJxCkN-JV60nSpI3gQMbUwWAXm9ch_6qpafOatMq-vanvi4I3uzqB8_zOCc9B6CWGBgPmb8dGj3HKDQEQDXQNAHuCdphRUmPRwlO0A8J53VLGT9BpziMUgmD2HJ1gwdtOYLxD93cm7l2lZlsFP_lFLT7OuYpDNbnlW7SHZ2l7vQaVquRM6S9pNRv4rlJViPPXenFpqoYYQvxVr_tz9GxQIbsXx3qGvny8ur_8XN_cfrq-_HBTGwZiqQU20BHWWWUIaEZaxjXpWyWgZ5oJ0L0QmPWYiNYqsFjzQaiO8cEOQuOB0DP05jB3n-KP1eVFTj4bF4KaXVyz7CglPTAsCkkPpEkx5-QGuU9-UulBYpCbTTnKPzblZlNCJ4urknp1nL_qydl_maO-Arw-AiobFYakZuPzX44QhltKeeHeHzhXbPz0LslsvJuNs74IXaSN_pGPXPyXN8HPvqz87h5cHuOa5iJaYpmJBHm3HX67OwgA2vaC_gZJPKg8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733280519</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Maurer, Peter ; Eckert, Alexander W ; Kriwalsky, Marcus S ; Schubert, Johannes</creator><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Peter ; Eckert, Alexander W ; Kriwalsky, Marcus S ; Schubert, Johannes</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1940</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.07.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19647911</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJOSEY</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Alcohol Drinking ; Alloplastic reconstruction devices ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bone Plates ; Bone Transplantation ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - rehabilitation ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery ; Child ; Complication ; Cranial Irradiation ; Dentistry ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Mandible - surgery ; Mandibular Neoplasms - rehabilitation ; Mandibular Neoplasms - surgery ; Mandibular reconstruction ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Postoperative Complications ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods ; Risk Factors ; Smoking ; Surgery ; Treatment Failure ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>British journal of oral &amp; maxillofacial surgery, 2010-03, Vol.48 (2), p.100-104</ispartof><rights>The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>2009 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22514336$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647911$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckert, Alexander W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kriwalsky, Marcus S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schubert, Johannes</creatorcontrib><title>Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up</title><title>British journal of oral &amp; maxillofacial surgery</title><addtitle>Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Abstract 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.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Alcohol Drinking</subject><subject>Alloplastic reconstruction devices</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bone Plates</subject><subject>Bone Transplantation</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Complication</subject><subject>Cranial Irradiation</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mandible - surgery</subject><subject>Mandibular Neoplasms - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Mandibular Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Mandibular reconstruction</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation</subject><subject>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Failure</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0266-4356</issn><issn>1532-1940</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkV9r1jAUh4Mo7t3mJxCkN-JV60nSpI3gQMbUwWAXm9ch_6qpafOatMq-vanvi4I3uzqB8_zOCc9B6CWGBgPmb8dGj3HKDQEQDXQNAHuCdphRUmPRwlO0A8J53VLGT9BpziMUgmD2HJ1gwdtOYLxD93cm7l2lZlsFP_lFLT7OuYpDNbnlW7SHZ2l7vQaVquRM6S9pNRv4rlJViPPXenFpqoYYQvxVr_tz9GxQIbsXx3qGvny8ur_8XN_cfrq-_HBTGwZiqQU20BHWWWUIaEZaxjXpWyWgZ5oJ0L0QmPWYiNYqsFjzQaiO8cEOQuOB0DP05jB3n-KP1eVFTj4bF4KaXVyz7CglPTAsCkkPpEkx5-QGuU9-UulBYpCbTTnKPzblZlNCJ4urknp1nL_qydl_maO-Arw-AiobFYakZuPzX44QhltKeeHeHzhXbPz0LslsvJuNs74IXaSN_pGPXPyXN8HPvqz87h5cHuOa5iJaYpmJBHm3HX67OwgA2vaC_gZJPKg8</recordid><startdate>20100301</startdate><enddate>20100301</enddate><creator>Maurer, Peter</creator><creator>Eckert, Alexander W</creator><creator>Kriwalsky, Marcus S</creator><creator>Schubert, Johannes</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100301</creationdate><title>Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up</title><author>Maurer, Peter ; Eckert, Alexander W ; Kriwalsky, Marcus S ; Schubert, Johannes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Alcohol Drinking</topic><topic>Alloplastic reconstruction devices</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bone Plates</topic><topic>Bone Transplantation</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Complication</topic><topic>Cranial Irradiation</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mandible - surgery</topic><topic>Mandibular Neoplasms - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Mandibular Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Mandibular reconstruction</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation</topic><topic>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Failure</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckert, Alexander W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kriwalsky, Marcus S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schubert, Johannes</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of oral &amp; maxillofacial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maurer, Peter</au><au>Eckert, Alexander W</au><au>Kriwalsky, Marcus S</au><au>Schubert, Johannes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up</atitle><jtitle>British journal of oral &amp; maxillofacial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2010-03-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>100</spage><epage>104</epage><pages>100-104</pages><issn>0266-4356</issn><eissn>1532-1940</eissn><coden>BJOSEY</coden><abstract>Abstract 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.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>19647911</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.07.005</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-4356
ispartof British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery, 2010-03, Vol.48 (2), p.100-104
issn 0266-4356
1532-1940
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733280519
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alcohol Drinking
Alloplastic reconstruction devices
Biological and medical sciences
Bone Plates
Bone Transplantation
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - rehabilitation
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery
Child
Complication
Cranial Irradiation
Dentistry
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Logistic Models
Male
Mandible - surgery
Mandibular Neoplasms - rehabilitation
Mandibular Neoplasms - surgery
Mandibular reconstruction
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Postoperative Complications
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods
Risk Factors
Smoking
Surgery
Treatment Failure
Young Adult
title Scope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-up
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T23%3A35%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scope%20and%20limitations%20of%20methods%20of%20mandibular%20reconstruction:%20a%20long-term%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20oral%20&%20maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.au=Maurer,%20Peter&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=100&rft.epage=104&rft.pages=100-104&rft.issn=0266-4356&rft.eissn=1532-1940&rft.coden=BJOSEY&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.07.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733280519%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-91c07257dac20b52456b284a9085b590b8991581294da0d1b6f9a756fdf9b1f23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733280519&rft_id=info:pmid/19647911&rfr_iscdi=true