Bone Union of Osseous Microvascular Free Tissue Transfer in Mandibular Reconstruction

The osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap: A multidisciplinary review of the evidence

The osteocutaneous radial forearm (OCRFF) is a versatile free flap option for bony defects of the head and neck, given the thinness and pliability of the forearm cutaneous paddle, pedicle length, reliability, lack of atherosclerosis, and functional concerns common to other osseous donor sites. The OCRFF was once associated with a high risk of radial fracture, in addition to concerns about the quality and durability of bone stock for osseous reconstruction, particularly for the mandible. Following the introduction of prophylactic plating of the radius, the incidence of symptomatic radial fracture has drastically decreased. Furthermore, modifications of the bony osteotomies and other evolutions of this flap harvest have increased the use of the OCRFF throughout the head and neck. Despite these advantages, the OCRFF is not widely utilized by microvascular reconstructive surgeons due to perceived limitations and risks. Herein, we present a multidisciplinary, contemporary review of the harvest technique, outcomes, and perioperative management for the OCRFF.

Target Delineation in Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer After Flap Reconstruction

Delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) after resection of head and neck cancer can be challenging, especially after flap reconstruction. The main area of contention is whether the entire flap should be included in the CTV. Several case series have reported marginal misses and intraflap failures when the entire flap was not routinely included in the CTV. On the other hand, available data have not convincingly demonstrated a detriment to long-term outcomes using intensity modulated radiotherapy after flap reconstruction. On the contrary, postoperative radiation can facilitate epilation and mucosalization of the flap tissue, reduce flap bulk, and improve long-term esthetic and functional outcomes. Therefore, our standard practice is to include the entire flap in the CTV. In certain scenarios, we may allow for a lower dose to part of flap distant from the resection bed than the flap-tumor bed junction, where recurrences are most likely. We provide three case vignettes describing such scenarios where sparing part of the flap, and more importantly, the nearby uninvolved native tissue, from high-dose radiation may be justified.

In-house virtual surgical planning and guided mandibular reconstruction is less precise, but more economical and time-efficient than commercial procedures

BACKGROUND

To compare an in-house and a commercially available surgical planning solution for mandibular reconstruction in terms of postoperative reconstruction accuracy and economic benefit.

METHODS

Twenty-nine consecutive patients with advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) requiring segmental mandibular reconstruction were enrolled. Fifteen patients underwent in-house surgical planning and 14 patients underwent a commercially available planning solution. A morphometric comparison of preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) data sets and a cost-benefit comparison were performed.

RESULTS

Volumes of planned and reconstructed bone segments differed significantly for both in-house planning (p = 0.0431) and commercial planning (p < 0.0001). Significant differences in osteotomy angles were demonstrated for in-house planning (p = 0.0391). Commercial planning was superior to in-house planning for total mandibular deviation (p = 0.0217), intersegmental space volumes (p = 0.0035), and lengths (p = 0.0007). No significant difference was found between the two planning solutions in terms of intersegmental ossification and the incidence of wound healing disorders. In-house planning took less time than commercial planning (p < 0.0001). Component manufacturing costs (p < 0.0001) and total cumulative costs (p < 0.0001) were significantly lower for in-house planning.

CONCLUSIONS

In-house surgical planning is less accurate but has a cost advantage and could be performed in less time.