Gruichev D, Yovev T, Kniha K, Möhlhenrich S C, Goloborodko E, Lethaus B, Hölzle F, Modabber A
Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, School of Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen; Aachen, Germany.
Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, School of Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen; Aachen, Germany.
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Jun;57(5):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2019.03.020. Epub 2019 Apr 12.
After continuity resection of the mandible, reconstruction of continuity with a reconstruction plate and soft tissue can be an alternative to immediate osseous reconstruction in patients with advanced oral cancer. We evaluated exposure of the plate in such reconstructions by comparing the results of a radial forearm flap (RFF) with a vastus lateralis myocutaneous flap (VLMF). We also analysed the resection margins and the incidence of secondary osseous reconstructions after one year free from relapse. We retrospectively examined all 48 mandibular reconstructions in which a reconstruction plate and RFF or VLMF had been used between 2007 and 2016. Exposure rates of plates were assessed and local (size and site of resection) and systemic risk factors (age, sex, treatment with radiation, and smoking) evaluated. Reconstruction plates, together with a RFF, were significantly more likely to be exposed than those with a VLMF (p = 0.01). There was significantly more exposure in the RFF group in mandibular defects larger than 6 cm, in contrast to the VLMF group (p = 0.002). Younger age (p < 0.001), lower body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.05) and smoking (p = 0.011) led to more exposure. In seven cases a second operation was necessary due to macroscopically invaded or close margins. Thirty-one patients had no bony reconstruction because of local recurrence, distant metastases, inadequate resection margins, poor general condition, or a second (different) tumour. Exposure of the plate after mandibular reconstruction happens less often with the VLM flap than with the RFF. The two-step approach can be an option in the treatment of advanced oral cancer.
在下颌骨连续性切除术后,对于晚期口腔癌患者,使用重建钢板和软组织重建下颌骨连续性可作为即刻骨重建的一种替代方法。我们通过比较桡侧前臂皮瓣(RFF)和股外侧肌皮瓣(VLMF)的结果,评估了此类重建中钢板的暴露情况。我们还分析了切缘以及无复发一年后的二次骨重建发生率。我们回顾性研究了2007年至2016年间所有48例使用重建钢板及RFF或VLMF的下颌骨重建病例。评估钢板的暴露率,并评估局部(切除范围和部位)和全身危险因素(年龄、性别、放疗及吸烟情况)。与使用VLMF的情况相比,使用RFF的重建钢板显著更易暴露(p = 0.01)。与VLMF组相比,RFF组在下颌骨缺损大于6 cm时暴露明显更多(p = 0.002)。年龄较小(p < 0.001)、体重指数(BMI)较低(p = 0.05)及吸烟(p = 0.011)会导致更多的暴露。7例因肉眼可见的侵犯或切缘接近而需要二次手术。31例患者因局部复发、远处转移、切缘不充分、全身状况差或存在第二种(不同的)肿瘤而未进行骨重建。下颌骨重建后,VLM皮瓣导致钢板暴露的情况比RFF少。两步法可作为晚期口腔癌治疗的一种选择。