Virtual Surgical Planning of Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery Flap for Midface Reconstruction

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.

Considerations in Free Flap Reconstruction of the Midface

Midface reconstruction has been a consistent challenge for reconstructive surgeons even with the significant advances in technology and technique achieved over the recent years. A meticulous preoperative assessment of the patient is required to properly assess the defect or anticipated defect, determine proper reconstructive surgical plan, and discuss expected functional and aesthetic outcomes with the patient. For years we have employed local flaps, regional flaps, obturators, alloplastic implants, free flaps, or a combination of the previously mentioned techniques to address complex midface reconstruction. Free flap reconstruction in the midface requires special considerations for the pedicle, flap selection, and flap design to ensure an optimal outcome. The introduction of virtual surgical planning for reconstruction has enhanced patient outcomes to include advances in immediate dental rehabilitation at the time of free flap surgery. Postoperative considerations including quality of life, functional and aesthetic outcomes, and management of complications will also be discussed.

Custom Presurgical Planning for Midfacial Reconstruction

Resection 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.

Midface Reconstruction: Planning and Outcome

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.

Non-vascularized Fibular Cortex Grafts with Osteocutaneous Free Fibula Transfer: A Novel Technique in Midface Reconstruction

Objectives: To present a method to reconstruct the midface using the fibula as both a microvascular free flap and as a free cortex graft. Methods: 22-year-old male presented with bilateral maxillary odonotogenic myxoma. Bilateral total maxillectomy defects were reconstructed using an osteocutaneous fibula free flap. The nasomaxillary buttresses were augmented using free cortex grafts to provide additional soft tissue projection and lateral nasal support. Results: The patient received dental implants at 10 months postoperatively and resumed a normal diet. His midface height, nasal and maxillary projection were adequate. At 36 months post-treatment he has no evidence of disease recurrence or resorption of the free bone grafts. Conclusion: The fibula free flap can be used to provide additional support to a patient’s reconstruction by means of free cortex grafts. The patient has had successful restoration of pyriform aperture, nasal projection, mastication, and dental restoration using a single donor site.

Palatomaxillary Reconstruction: Fibula or Scapula

Palatomaxillary reconstruction presents a unique challenge for the reconstructive surgeon. The maxillofacial skeleton preserves critical aerodigestive functions—it provides a stable hard palate to support mastication and separate the nasal and oral cavities, and buttress support to provide adequate midface contour. Free tissue transfer has become a routine part of the reconstructive ladder in managing palatomaxillary defects. While there is a wide variety of options for bony reconstruction within the head and neck, the fibula and the scapula, and their variations, have become two of the most commonly used options for midface reconstruction. This review will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both in specific regard to reconstruction of the palatomaxillary area.