Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Functional and cosmetic defects in maxillofacial region are caused by various ailments like trauma, neoplasm, developmental, infections and iatrogenic causes. Reconstruction of these defects with free flaps remains the gold standard but demerits like need for surgical expertise and equipment, prolonged duration of surgery, compliance of the patient and increased cost are associated with microvascular reconstruction. Hence reconstruction with nonvascular bone grafts can be considered when defect is nonirradiated and <9 cm and with sufficient soft tissue cover available.

Purpose

To retrospectively evaluate clinical, radiological outcome and complications encountered with mandibular reconstruction using non vascular fibula graft.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included 7 patients who were treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, AP between 2011 and 2013 with histologically proven benign osteolytic lesions of mandible that require a segmental mandibulectomy and primary reconstruction using autogenous non-vascularised fibular graft. The clinical case records of the patients and personal patient assessment forms (Quality of Life Assessment Forms) were analysed. They were recalled every 3rd, 6th and 9th month after surgery for evaluation of clinical, radiological outcome of the graft and complications occurring at recipient and donor sites.

Results

In all the 7 patients, the lower border continuity was maintained except in one where the graft was dislodged. Tongue movements in all the patients were unrestricted. Jaw movements were affected in cases of ramus defects with slight deviation to operated side and reduced mouth opening. Radiological observations revealed no significant changes in 3 months except for slight reduction in graft height. The radioopaque bridging with continuity of lower border of mandible was noticed in 6th month indicating the take of the graft. This was achieved in every case except in one where the graft was lost due to dislodged reconstruction plate. In 9th month the edges of the graft i.e., graft to native mandible junction showed more resorption (3 mm) especially where there is >2 mm of gap. Whereas increase in height of graft in other areas especially in graft to graft junction was seen. Significant graft resorption was seen in two cases. There were no major complications associated with the donor site.

Conclusion

Avascular fibula graft although a second choice to vascularised fibula, is a favourable option for mandible defects of 6–10 cm under optimum conditions especially in developing countries where financial and/or surgical resources are limited. An attempt for primary reconstruction with this is never futile as it prevents aesthetic deformity even in the event of failure and thus makes secondary reconstruction easy. However in order to confirm the results a prospective study with large scale of patients is necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gadre PK et al (2011) Nonvascularized bone grafting for mandibular reconstruction: myth or reality? J Craniofac Surg 22:5

    Google Scholar 

  2. Urken ML, Weinberg H, Vickery C et al (1991) Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite free flaps. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:733–744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Urken L (1991) Composite free flaps in oromandibular reconstruction: review of the literature. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:724

  4. Posnick JC (1993) Use of the free fibular flap in the immediate reconstruction of pediatric mandibular tumours: report of cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:189–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferri J et al (1997) Advantages and limitations of the fibula free flap in mandibular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:440–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyne PJ et al (1997) A comparison of vascularised and nonvascular bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Talyor GI, Miller GD, Ham FJ (1975) The free vascularized bone graft. A clinical extension of microvascular techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 55:533–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiland AJ, Moore JR, Daniel RK (1983) Vascularised bone autografts. Experience with 41 cases. Clin Orthop 174:87–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gonzalez-Garcia R et al (2008) Vascularised free fibula flap for the reconstruction of mandibular defects: clinical experience in 42 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:191–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Day TA, Girod, DA (2006) Textbook of oral cavity reconstruction. Taylor & Francis Group, New York

  11. Pogrel MA, Podlesh S, Anthony JP et al (1997) A comparison of vascularized and nonvascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:1200–1206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jewer DD, Boyd JB et al (1989) Orofacial and mandibular reconstruction with the iliac crest free flap: a review of 60 cases and a new method of classification. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:391–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rana et al (2011) Reconstruction of mandibular defects- clinical retrospective research over a 10-year period. Head Neck Oncol 3:23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kademani D, Keller E (2006) Iliac crest grafting for mandibular reconstruction. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg N Am 14:161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Foster RD, Anthony JP, Sharma A et al (1999) Vascularized bone flaps versus nonvascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction: an outcome analysis of primary bony union and endosseous implant success. Head Neck 21:66–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li Lei et al (2007) Long term evaluation after mandibular reconstruction with fibular grafts versus microsurgical fibular flaps. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:281–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schliephake T et al (1999) Comparision of late results of mandibular reconstruction using nonvascularised or vascularised grafts and dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57:944–950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egyedi P (1986) Wound infection after mandibular reconstruction with autogenous graft. Ann Acad Med Singapore 15:340–345

  19. Koole R, Egyedi P (1987) Postoperative contamination of mandibular osteotomy sites with saliva. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 16:554–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boyd JB, Mulholland RS, Davidson J et al (1995) The free flap and plate in oromandibular reconstruction: long-term review and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:1018–1028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Merkx MAW, Fennis JPM, Verhagen CM et al (2004) Reconstruction of the mandible using preshaped 2.3 mm titanium plates, autogenous particulate cortico-cancellous bone grafts and platelet rich plasma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33:733–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vu DD, Schmidt BL et al (2008) Quality of life evaluation for patients receiving vascularized versus nonvascularized bone graft reconstruction of segmental mandibular defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:1856–1863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hundepool AC et al (2008) Rehabilitation after mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap: clinical outcome and quality of life assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:1009–1013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Holzle F et al (2007) Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction after mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flap. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:802–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cella DF et al (1994) Quality of life: concepts and definition. J Pain Symptom Manage 9:186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rogers SN, Lowe D, Fisher SE et al (2002) Health-related quality of life and clinical function after primary surgery for oral cancer. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Graeff A, de Leeuw JR, Ros WJ et al (2000) Long-term quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 110:98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers SN, Lowe D, Brown JS et al (1999) The University of Washington head and neck cancer measure as a predictor of outcome following primary surgery for oral cancer. Head Neck 21:394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rogers SN, Hannah L, Lowe D et al (1999) Quality of life 5–10 years after primary surgery for oral and oro-pharyngeal cancer. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 27:187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson Katja et al (2006) Clinical evaluation of endosseous implants in nonvascularised fibula bone grafts for reconstruction of the severly atrophied mandibular bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1427–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wedler V et al (2007) Retrospective analysis and clinical evaluation of mandible reconstruction with free fibula flap. Eur J Plast Surg 29:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Booth PW (2006) Textbook of oral and maxillofacial surgery, vol 1. Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone, p 432

  33. Marx RE (1993) Mandibular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:466–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abbott LE, Schottstaedt ER, Sannders JB et al (1947) The evaluation of cortical and cancellous bone as grafting materials: a clinical and experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg 29:381–414

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Axhausen W (1956) The osteogenetic phases of regeneration of bone, a historical and experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 38-A:593

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Urist MR (1970) The substratum for bone morphogenesis. Dev Biol 4(suppl):125

    Google Scholar 

  37. August M, Tompach P, Chang Y et al (2000) Factors influencing the long-term outcome of mandibular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:731–737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Carlson ER, Marx RE (1999) Mandibular reconstruction using cancellous cellular bone grafts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 54:889–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Disa JJ, Hidalgo DA et al (1999) Evaluation of bone height in osseous free flap mandible reconstruction: an indirect measure of bone mass. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1371–1377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hidalgo DA, Rekow AL (2002) Free flap mandible reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hidalgo DA (1989) Fibula free flap, A new method of mandible reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 84:71–9

  42. Garrett A et al (2006) Evaluation of fibula free flap donor site morbidity. Am J Otolaryngol Head Neck Med Surg 27:29–32

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Chintareddypalem, Nellore, 524002, A.P., India

    Sathya Kumar Devireddy, M. Senthil Murugan, R. V. Kishore Kumar, Rajasekhar Gali, Sridhar Reddy Kanubaddy & M. Sunayana

  2. OMFS, SRM Dental College and Hospital, Ramapuram, Chennai, India

    M. Senthil Murugan

Authors
  1. Sathya Kumar Devireddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Senthil Murugan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. V. Kishore Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rajasekhar Gali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sridhar Reddy Kanubaddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Sunayana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Sunayana.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Devireddy, S.K., Senthil Murugan, M., Kishore Kumar, R.V. et al. Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 14, 299–307 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0657-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-014-0657-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation