Craniofacial implants at a single centre 2005-2015: retrospective review of 451 implants

Patient satisfaction with different types of craniofacial prostheses

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

A maxillofacial prosthesis represents an effective method of giving maxillofacial defects a positive esthetic appearance with minimal risk. However, studies of complications among prosthesis wearers are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine levels of patient satisfaction with various maxillofacial prostheses and retention types, as measured through a survey questionnaire package.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients treated at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Craniofacial Prosthetics Unit (CPU) since 2015 were included. They had been treated according to a standardized protocol and answered a survey questionnaire package with the following sections: demographics, frequency of prosthesis usage, and the Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial Prosthetics (TOMCP-27) survey addressing patient satisfaction. To be eligible for this study, patients must have been more than 18 years of age, in possession of a maxillofacial prosthesis, and received treatment at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center CPU since 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were eligible and contacted, of whom 51 agreed to participate in the survey. The study population was overall extremely satisfied with their maxillofacial prostheses. In 77.8% of the TOMCP-27 questions, the largest group of patients chose the answer demonstrating the highest level of satisfaction. Of all prosthesis types surveyed, patients with auricular prostheses reported the greatest rates of satisfaction, with the entire group having selected answers corresponding to the highest levels of overall satisfaction. However, patients with orbital prostheses were more likely to experience varying degrees of dissatisfaction, with 72% of the highest reported levels of dissatisfaction being from this prosthesis group. In addition, patients with osseointegrated implant-retained prostheses reported higher satisfaction levels with other retention methods, with the bar clasp group outperforming the magnetic coupling retention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experienced an excellent overall rate of satisfaction with their maxillofacial prostheses. Future development should focus on the continued development of osseointegrated methods, improved magnetic coupling, and improved prosthesis technology, especially for orbital prostheses.

Ophthalmic rehabilitation in oncology care

Ophthalmic rehabilitation refers to the multidisciplinary approach to restoring, maximizing, and preserving the visual function and quality of life for patients affected by ocular manifestations of cancer or its treatments. Besides its approach to low vision, ophthalmic rehabilitation also encompasses a series of reconstructive interventions to mitigate anatomic deficits that may interplay with visual impairment. A gamut of oncologic conditions may result in ocular disabilities, including primary intraocular tumours, secondary metastases, or adverse effects of systemic therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Methods of ophthalmic rehabilitation are evolving constantly and involve the prescription of optical aids and adaptive technologies to enhance remaining vision, as well as supportive training and counselling to address psychosocial effects. Although studies in low vision have mostly covered aspects of rehabilitation in inherited and degenerative eye conditions, ophthalmic rehabilitation within the context of cancer carries specificities that have been poorly explored in the literature on ophthalmology and oncology. This review aims to build on the trends of low vision management, ocular oncology treatments, orbital reconstructive surgery, and visual therapy to revise the published rationale behind evaluating and managing patients facing debilitating ocular sequelae as the result of cancer.

Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors-a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan-Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses - A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of up to 30 years

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of endosseous implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with craniofacial defects resulting from congenital disease, trauma, or oncologic treatment had implant retained prostheses placed in the mastoid, orbital, or nasal region and then assessed over a period of up to 30 years. Implant survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical assessments consisted of scoring skin reactions under the prosthesis and the peri-implant skin reactions. Possible risk factors for implant loss were identified. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point VAS-scale.

RESULTS

A total of 525 implants placed in 201 patients were included. The median follow up was 71 months (IQR 28-174 months). Implants placed in the mastoid and nasal region showed the highest overall implant survival rates (10-year implant survival rates of 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively), while the orbital implants had the lowest overall survival rate (84.2%). Radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant loss (HR 3.14, p < 0.001). No differences in implant loss were found between pre- and post-operative radiotherapy (p = 0.89). Soft tissue problems were not frequently encountered, and the patients were highly satisfied with their implant-retained prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Implants used to retain craniofacial prostheses have high survival and patient satisfaction rates and can thus be considered as a predictable treatment option. Radiation is the most important risk factor for implant loss.

Orbital exenteration: an updated review with perspectives

Orbital exenteration is a radical and disfiguring surgery mainly performed in specialized tertiary care centers. Orbital exenteration has long been considered the treatment of choice for managing periocular tumors invading the orbit or primary orbital malignancies. Over the past decades, attention has been directed toward reducing the perioperative morbidity by developing new surgical devices and new strategies and promoting cosmetic rehabilitation by providing adequate facial prostheses. Despite these advances, several studies have questioned the role of orbital exenteration in improving overall survival. The last decade has been marked by the emergence of a new paradigm: the "eye-sparing" strategies based on conservative surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy and/or targeted therapies and immunotherapies. We summarize the data on orbital exenteration, including epidemiology, etiologies, use of surgical ablative and reconstructive techniques, complications, outcomes, and the related controversies.

Implant prognosis in irradiated versus non-irradiated nasal, orbital and auricular sites

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate implant survival in irradiated nasal, auricular, orbital sites and to compare them with non-irradiated respective sites. Four electronic databases and seven related journals were searched until December and March 2018, respectively. A total of 7892 articles were identified, 18 of which were included in this review; one non-randomized clinical trial, two prospective cohort, eight retrospective cohort and seven cross-sectional studies. Using the ROBIN-I Cochrane tool for risk assessment, 13 studies were judged at serious, one at moderate and four at critical risk of bias. Thirteen were included in 18 meta-analyses, the results of which showed a significant difference between irradiated and non-irradiated sites, favouring non-irradiated with risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-0.97, P=0.001. Comparisons among nasal, auricular and orbital sites revealed no significant differences, whether in irradiated or non-irradiated patients at P<0.05. Hence, it was concluded that, within the limitations of this review, survival of craniofacial implants is negatively affected by radiotherapy, especially in orbital sites. Level of evidence is moderate. Therefore, further prospective cohort studies with calculated sample sizes, restricted or properly managed confounders and no deviations from intended interventions might produce different results.