Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY, USA.
Medical College, Aga Khan University, Pakistan.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Aug;75(8):2691-2701. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.097. Epub 2022 May 6.
Introduction There is currently no consensus as to the comparative complication profiles of mini-plate (MP) and reconstruction bar (RB) osseous fixation in fibula flap mandibular reconstruction. The aim of this study is to compare complication rates associated with the use of MP versus RB fixation for vascularized fibula free flap (FFF) reconstruction of oncologic mandibular defects in an effort to better guide hardware utilization and pre-operative virtual surgical planning methods. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were queried to identify studies related to FFF-based mandibular reconstruction with either MP or RB fixation. Primary endpoints of interest were plate complications, wound infection, mal- or non-union, and total flap loss. Complication rates were calculated as weighted proportions and compared via Fisher's exact testing. Results Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria, which examined 1,513 patients. Only three studies directly compared MP fixation with RB fixation. MP fixation was used in 828 (54.7%) cases and RB fixation in 685 (45.3%) cases. MP fixation demonstrated greater rates of plate-related complications (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.01, respectively), fistula formation (15.8% versus 4.7%, p = 0.04), total flap loss (9.4% versus 4.7%, p = 0.02), partial flap loss (20.6% versus 6.1%, p < 0.01), and re-operation for vascular compromise (13.3% versus 4.0%, p < 0.01). Rates of infection, mal-union/non-union, and wound dehiscence were similar across both groups. Conclusion Our results suggest that MP use may be associated with higher rates of plate-related complications. Though limited by outcome reporting heterogeneity, this review can serve as a template for future investigations evaluating the safety profiles of MP and RB fixation in head and neck surgery.
介绍 目前,对于腓骨皮瓣下颌骨重建中微型板(MP)和重建杆(RB)骨固定的比较并发症情况尚未达成共识。本研究旨在比较使用 MP 与 RB 固定治疗血管化腓骨游离皮瓣(FFF)重建肿瘤下颌骨缺损相关的并发症发生率,以便更好地指导硬件使用和术前虚拟手术规划方法。
方法 根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。检索 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,以确定与使用 MP 或 RB 固定的 FFF 为基础的下颌骨重建相关的研究。主要感兴趣的终点是钢板并发症、伤口感染、畸形愈合或不愈合以及总皮瓣丢失。并发症发生率计算为加权比例,并通过 Fisher 精确检验进行比较。
结果 16 项研究符合纳入标准,共检查了 1513 例患者。只有 3 项研究直接比较了 MP 固定与 RB 固定。MP 固定用于 828 例(54.7%)病例,RB 固定用于 685 例(45.3%)病例。MP 固定的钢板相关并发症发生率更高(32.5%对 18.8%,p<0.01)、瘘形成(15.8%对 4.7%,p=0.04)、总皮瓣丢失(9.4%对 4.7%,p=0.02)、部分皮瓣丢失(20.6%对 6.1%,p<0.01)和血管并发症再次手术(13.3%对 4.0%,p<0.01)。两组感染、畸形愈合/不愈合和伤口裂开的发生率相似。
结论 我们的结果表明,MP 使用可能与更高的钢板相关并发症发生率相关。尽管由于结果报告的异质性而受到限制,但本综述可以作为未来评估头颈部手术中 MP 和 RB 固定安全性的研究模板。