Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40(02): 087-095
DOI: 10.1055/a-2070-8677
Original Article

Miniplate Versus Reconstruction Bar Fixation for Oncologic Mandibular Reconstruction with Free Fibula Flaps

Zack Cohen   *
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Francis D. Graziano
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Meghana G. Shamsunder
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Farooq Shahzad
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Jay O. Boyle
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Marc A. Cohen
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Evan Matros
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Jonas A. Nelson
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
,
Robert J. Allen Jr.
1   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Fibula free flaps (FFF) are the gold standard tissue for the reconstruction of segmental mandibular defects. A comparison of miniplate (MP) and reconstruction bar (RB)-based fixation of FFFs has been previously described in a systematic review; however, long-term, single-center studies comparing the two plating methods are lacking. The authors aim to examine the complication profile between MPs and RBs at a single tertiary cancer center. We hypothesized that increased components and a lack of rigid fixation inherent to MPs would lead to higher rates of hardware exposure/failure.

Methods A retrospective review was performed from a prospectively maintained database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All patients who underwent FFF-based reconstruction of mandibular defects between 2015 and 2021 were included. Data on patient demographics, medical risk factors, operative indications, and chemoradiation were collected. The primary outcomes of interest were perioperative flap-related complications, long-term union rates, osteoradionecrosis (ORN), return to the operating room (OR), and hardware exposure/failure. Recipient site complications were further stratified into two groups: early (<90 days) and late (>90 days).

Results In total, 96 patients met the inclusion criteria (RB = 63, MP = 33). Patients in both groups were similar with respect to age, presence of comorbidities, smoking history, and operative characteristics. The mean follow-up period was 17.24 months. In total, 60.6 and 54.0% of patients in the MP and RB cohorts received adjuvant radiation, respectively. There were no differences in rates of hardware failure overall; however, in patients with an initial complication after 90 days, MPs had significantly higher rates of hardware exposure (3 vs. 0, p = 0.046).

Conclusion MPs were found to have a higher risk of exposed hardware in patients with a late initial recipient site complication. It is possible that improved fixation with highly adaptive RBs designed by computer-aided design/manufacturing technology explains these results. Future studies are needed to assess the effects of rigid mandibular fixation on patient-reported outcome measures in this unique population.

Keywords

reconstruction bar - miniplate - fibula free flap - mandibulectomy - mandible reconstruction

* Denotes first author.




Publication History

Received: 20 November 2022

Accepted: 19 March 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 April 2023

Article published online:
08 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kumar BP, Venkatesh V, Kumar KA, Yadav BY, Mohan SR. Mandibular reconstruction: overview. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2016; 15 (04) 425-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hidalgo DA. Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 84 (01) 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ling XF, Peng X. What is the price to pay for a free fibula flap? A systematic review of donor-site morbidity following free fibula flap surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (03) 657-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vail TP, Urbaniak JR. Donor-site morbidity with use of vascularized autogenous fibular grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78 (02) 204-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Momoh AO, Yu P, Skoracki RJ, Liu S, Feng L, Hanasono MM. A prospective cohort study of fibula free flap donor-site morbidity in 157 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (03) 714-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wallace CG, Chang YM, Tsai CY, Wei FC. Harnessing the potential of the free fibula osteoseptocutaneous flap in mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (01) 305-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Boyd JB, Mulholland RS. Fixation of the vascularized bone graft in mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91 (02) 274-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Strackee SD, Kroon FH, Bos KE. Fixation methods in mandibular reconstruction using fibula grafts: a comparative study into the relative strength of three different types of osteosynthesis. Head Neck 2001; 23 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hidalgo DA, Pusic AL. Free-flap mandibular reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (02) 438-449 , discussion 450–451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 van Gemert JTM, Abbink JH, van Es RJJ, Rosenberg AJWP, Koole R, Van Cann EM. Early and late complications in the reconstructed mandible with free fibula flaps. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117 (04) 773-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Seol GJ, Jeon EG, Lee JS. et al. Reconstruction plates used in the surgery for mandibular discontinuity defect. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 40 (06) 266-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kurlander DE, Garvey PB, Largo RD. et al. The cost utility of virtual surgical planning and computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing in mandible reconstruction using the free fibula osteocutaneous flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (03) 221-230
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fliss E, Yanko R, Bracha G. et al. The evolution of the free fibula flap for head and neck reconstruction: 21 years of experience with 128 flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (04) 372-379
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Al-Bustani S, Austin GK, Ambrose EC, Miller J, Hackman TG, Halvorson EG. Miniplates versus reconstruction bars for oncologic free fibula flap mandible reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 77 (03) 314-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kennady MC, Tucker MR, Lester GE, Buckley MJ. Stress shielding effect of rigid internal fixation plates on mandibular bone grafts. A photon absorption densitometry and quantitative computerized tomographic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 18 (05) 307-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sobti N, Ahmed KS, Polanco T. et al. Mini-plate versus reconstruction bar fixation for oncologic mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (08) 2691-2701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Robey AB, Spann ML, McAuliff TM, Meza JL, Hollins RR, Johnson PJ. Comparison of miniplates and reconstruction plates in fibular flap reconstruction of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (06) 1733-1738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cordeiro PG, Henderson PW, Matros E. A 20-year experience with 202 segmental mandibulectomy defects: a defect classification system, algorithm for flap selection, and surgical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (04) 571e-581e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gutwald R, Jaeger R, Lambers FM. Customized mandibular reconstruction plates improve mechanical performance in a mandibular reconstruction model. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2017; 20 (04) 426-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tarsitano A, Battaglia S, Ricotta F. et al. Accuracy of CAD/CAM mandibular reconstruction: a three-dimensional, fully virtual outcome evaluation method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46 (07) 1121-1125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sweed AH, Bolzoni AR, Kadubiec A, Beltramini GA, Cherchi A, Baj A. Factors influencing CAD/CAM accuracy in fibula free flap mandibular reconstruction. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2020; 40 (02) 138-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ciocca L, Mazzoni S, Fantini M, Persiani F, Marchetti C, Scotti R. CAD/CAM guided secondary mandibular reconstruction of a discontinuity defect after ablative cancer surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012; 40 (08) e511-e515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wilde F, Cornelius CP, Schramm A. Computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction using a patient-specific reconstruction plate fabricated with computer-aided design and manufacturing techniques. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2014; 7 (02) 158-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Raikundalia MD, Fang CH, Spinazzi EF. et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on head and neck cancer patients undergoing surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 154 (02) 294-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Singh B, Cordeiro PG, Santamaria E, Shaha AR, Pfister DG, Shah JP. Factors associated with complications in microvascular reconstruction of head and neck defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (02) 403-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Suh JD, Sercarz JA, Abemayor E. et al. Analysis of outcome and complications in 400 cases of microvascular head and neck reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (08) 962-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yeh SA. Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Semin Plast Surg 2010; 24 (02) 127-136
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fitzgerald TJ, Jodoin MB, Tillman G. et al. Radiation therapy toxicity to the skin. Dermatol Clin 2008; 26 (01) 161-172 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lee EY, Kang JY, Kim KW, Choi KH, Yoon TY, Lee JY. Clinical characteristics of odontogenic cutaneous fistulas. Ann Dermatol 2016; 28 (04) 417-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tan BK, Por YC, Chen HC. Complications of head and neck reconstruction and their treatment. Semin Plast Surg 2010; 24 (03) 288-298
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar