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...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 2010-03, Vol.48 (2), p.100-104 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 & 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&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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |