Segmental mandibulectomy and microvascular reconstruction with fibula free flap: Comparison between intraoral and extraoral approaches.

BACKGROUND

Segmental mandibulectomy and reconstruction of resulting defect can be performed via intraoral approach (IOA) or extraoral approach (EOA). Both approaches have advantages, disadvantages, indications, and contraindications to consider during their selection.

OBJECTIVE

To compare IOA vs EOA of segmental mandibulectomy and microvascular reconstruction with fibula free flap (FFF).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in which 51 patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy and microvascular reconstruction with FFF from 2020 to 2024 were included, especially 17 patients by IOA and 34 patients by EOA, representing both groups of this study. Clinical characteristics, surgery parameters, and patients' prognosis were evaluated. Patients' satisfaction and Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59) were assessed during follow-up.

RESULTS

Ameloblastoma was the most frequent diagnosis (52.9% managed by IOA vs 70.6% by EOA); FFF was frequently positioned as double barrel (94.1% managed by IOA vs 88.2% by EOA). Compared with EOA group, IOA group had less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -112.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -178.9 to -45.5, p = 0.001), higher satisfaction score (MD = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.7, p ˂ 0.001), and lower DAS59 score (MD = -0.5, 95% CI: -0.7 to -0.2, p ˂ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both IOA and EOA were found safe and feasible, presenting similar perioperative features and postoperative outcomes. Patients managed with IOA were more satisfied with aesthetic outcomes than patients managed with EOA. In the absence of simultaneous immediate implant during mandibular FFF reconstruction, after stability of FFF on the defect site, patients should always be referred to an implantologist and/or prosthodontist for teeth restoration to improve functional and aesthetic outcomes.