Midface Reconstruction

Author(s):  
Matthew M. Hanasono
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (06) ◽  
pp. 696-702
Author(s):  
Nolan B. Seim ◽  
Enver Ozer ◽  
Sasha Valentin ◽  
Amit Agrawal ◽  
Mead VanPutten ◽  
...  

AbstractResection and reconstruction of midface involve complex ablative and reconstructive tools in head and oncology and maxillofacial prosthodontics. This region is extraordinarily important for long-term aesthetic and functional performance. From a reconstructive standpoint, this region has always been known to present challenges to a reconstructive surgeon due to the complex three-dimensional anatomy, the variable defects created, combination of the medical and dental functionalities, and the distance from reliable donor vessels for free tissue transfer. Another challenge one faces is the unique features of each individual resection defect as well as individual patient factors making each preoperative planning session and reconstruction unique. Understanding the long-term effects on speech, swallowing, and vision, one should routinely utilize a multidisciplinary approach to resection and reconstruction, including head and neck reconstructive surgeons, prosthodontists, speech language pathologists, oculoplastic surgeons, dentists, and/or craniofacial teams as indicated and with each practice pattern. With this in mind, we present our planning and reconstructive algorithm in midface reconstruction, including a dedicated focus on dental rehabilitation via custom presurgical planning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (03) ◽  
pp. 324-334
Author(s):  
Gautam Biswas

Abstract Reconstruction of the complex anatomy and aesthetics of the midface is often a challenge. A careful understanding of this three-dimensional (3D) structure is necessary. Anticipating the extent of excision and its planning following oncological resections is critical.In the past over two decades, with the advances in microsurgical procedures, contributions toward the reconstruction of this area have generated interest. Planning using digital imaging, 3D printed models, osseointegrated implants, and low-profile plates, has favorably impacted the outcome. However, there are still controversies in the management: to use single composite tissues versus multiple tissues; implants versus autografts; vascularized versus nonvascularized bone; prosthesis versus reconstruction.This article explores the present available options in maxillary reconstruction and outlines the approach in the management garnered from past publications and experiences.


2006 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
R. Brusati ◽  
F. Biglioli ◽  
R. Bazzacchi ◽  
A. Frigerio

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. e98-e101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Dawood ◽  
Nicholas Kalavrezos ◽  
Susan Tanner

2012 ◽  
Vol 129 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Cordeiro ◽  
Constance M. Chen

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. e105-e106
Author(s):  
Catherine Moss ◽  
Kostis Tzanidakis ◽  
Nick Kalavrezos ◽  
Colin Liew ◽  
Zaid Sadiq

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-Fan Kang ◽  
Xiao-Ming Lv ◽  
Shi-Yu Qiu ◽  
Meng-Kun Ding ◽  
Shang Xie ◽  
...  

ObjectiveMidface reconstruction is challenging for functional and esthetic reasons. The present study analyzed the effect of virtual surgical planning (VSP) of the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) flap for midface reconstruction.Patients and MethodsThirty-four patients who underwent midface reconstruction with the DCIA flap were included in this retrospective study. Of the 34 patients, 16 underwent preoperative VSP, which used a three-dimensionally printed surgical guide, computer-assisted navigation system, and pre-bent titanium implants to transfer VSP into real-world surgery. The other 18 patients underwent traditional midface reconstruction. The following were compared between the two groups: bony contact rate in the buttress region (BCR), dental arch reconstruction rate (DAR), surgical approach, position of vascular anastomosis, and dental implantation rate. The independent-samples t-test and Fisher’s exact test were used for analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsIn total, 12 males and 22 females were included in this study. All patients underwent midface reconstruction using the DCIA flap at the same institution. The median age of patients was 33 years (range: 16–68 years). The average BCR and DAR values in the VSP group were 59.4% ± 27.9% and 87.5% ± 18.9%, respectively, which were significantly higher compared with the non-VSP group (P = 0.049 and P = 0.004, respectively). The dental implantation rate in the VSP group (50.0%) was significantly higher compared with the non-VSP group (11.1%; P = 0.023). The intraoral approach for tumor ablation and vascular anastomosis was the most frequent choice in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. All patients were satisfied with facial symmetry postoperatively.ConclusionsVSP could effectively augment the effect of midface reconstruction with the DCIA flap. Stronger bone contact in the buttress region and higher DAR provide more opportunity for dental implantation, which might be the best solution to improve masticatory function in patients with midface defects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document