Combination of Costal Cartilage Graft and Rib-Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Risk Factors for Postoperative Infection After Maxillary Reconstruction Using Skeletal Grafts

Skeletal grafts are usually required to reconstruct defects after maxillectomy for acceptable aesthetic and functional results. Postoperative infection is a serious complication; however, few studies have evaluated the vulnerability to infection of various skeletal reconstructive materials used for maxillary reconstruction. A retrospective study was conducted on 53 cases in which maxillary skeletal reconstruction was performed between 2010 and 2021. The postoperative infection rate was compared between various skeletal reconstructive materials, including costal cartilage, scapula, fibula, ilium, cranium, and titanium mesh. In addition, the risk factors for postoperative infection were evaluated using 2-group comparison tests. Of 53 patients, 14 (25.4%) contracted an infection postoperatively. No significant differences were observed in the infection rates among the materials used for skeletal reconstruction. Cases undergoing secondary reconstruction tended to have a higher infection rate (34.4%) than primary reconstruction (14.3%). For nonvascularized skeletal grafts (41 cases), the concomitant use of soft-tissue flaps decreased the infection rate from 30.8% to 17.9%. Costal cartilage was the most frequently used material (31 cases), primarily for orbital floor reconstruction. Regarding the costal cartilage, nasal wall reconstruction had a higher infection rate (100%) than reconstruction of other parts of the maxilla (0.0%-17.9%). Nonvascularized skeletal grafts, mainly costal cartilage grafts, were safely used for maxillary reconstruction. However, caution should be exercised for postoperative infection in secondary cases and in cases where costal cartilage is used for nasal wall reconstruction. Covering nonvascularized skeletal grafts with soft-tissue flaps may be an effective countermeasure.

Evolution of midface microvascular reconstruction: three decades of experience from a single institution

PURPOSE

Midface reconstruction poses a complex set of challenges for reconstructive surgeons. The optimal midface reconstruction must possess a durable underlying bone construct capable of integrating dental implants. Facial contour is restored by the overlying microvascular soft tissue reconstruction with reestablishment of the oral cavity. A plethora of microvascular flaps used in clinical practice have been described including those harvested from the iliac crest, scapula, fibula, forearm and back (latissimus dorsi). The objective was to share our experiences with each of these treatment options that have continued to evolve over time for the benefit of patients.

METHODS

Our institution has over three decades of experience in reconstructing complex midface defects and this article summarizes midface reconstruction from an evolutionary perspective (for type II, III and IV defect; Browns classification, Supplementary Table I). We broadly divide this into (i) flaps supplied by the subscapular system (ii) autologous reconstruction with titanium mesh and (iii) fibula microvascular flaps using 3D planning.

RESULTS

The advantages and disadvantages for each approach are discussed (Supplementary Table II).

CONCLUSION

In the future, it is expected that 3D planning coupled with rapid prototyping, intraoperative navigation and CT imaging will become standard procedural practice.

Use of Anterolateral Thigh Flap and Fibula Flap in Oncologic Maxillary Reconstruction: An Algorithm Approach

BACKGROUND

Maxillary defects after oncologic resection can lead to not only cosmetic deformity but also functional problem. Reconstruction of maxillary defects remains the most challenging endeavor for plastic surgeons. An algorithm to guide plastic surgeons in selecting either the anterolateral thigh flap or the fibula flap for oncologic maxillary reconstruction has not been well established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent oncologic maxillectomy and free flap reconstruction from August 2012 to April 2018 were enrolled for retrospective chart review. Their operative findings and postoperative outcomes were analyzed as a case series. The reconstructive plan was decided using the 4 essential components in sequence: the anterior maxillary arch, orbital floor, eyeball, and oro-sinonasal communication, which are the main considerations in the established classification systems. Accordingly, when the anterior maxillary arch was lost or when the orbital floor was lost with eyeball preservation, a fibula flap was used. Otherwise, an anterolateral thigh flap was used.

RESULTS

Various maxillectomy defects were successfully reconstructed using an anterolateral thigh flap and a fibula flap. The defect types and corresponding reconstruction were fit into our proposed algorithm and classification. The corresponding outcomes were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The proposed algorithm by using the anterolateral thigh flap and the fibula flap for oncologic maxillary reconstruction is feasible, simple, and effective.