游离腓骨瓣修复重建上颌骨术后腓骨瓣位置变化

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.05.024

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的:研究腓骨瓣重建上颌骨术后腓骨瓣位置是否发生变化,初步分析影响腓骨瓣位置变化的因素。方法:选择2012年11月至2016年11月于北京大学口腔医院口腔颌面外科行上颌骨腓骨瓣重建的患者,根据患者修复颧上颌支柱的方式,分为钛板支柱组和骨支柱组。使用软件将术后1周与术后1年的CT进行三维重建,对齐术后1周及术后1年的上颌骨模型,获得腓骨瓣长轴的单位方向向量,根据单位方向向量坐标计算角度改变并记录位置改变方向。结果:32例患者纳入本研究。在术后1周与术后1年时,在X-Y平面上腓骨瓣长轴与X轴的夹角分别为95.65°±53.49°和95.53°±52.77°,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在X-Z平面上的夹角分别为 96.88°±69.76°和95.33°±67.42°,差异有统计学意义(P=0.0497)。钛板支柱组和骨支柱组用于修复牙槽突的腓骨瓣长轴在X-Y平面上的角度变化分别为3.23°±3.93°、1.94°±1.78°,在X-Z平面上的角度变化分别为 6.02°±9.89°、3.27°±2.31°,两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在X-Y平面上用于修复前牙牙槽突、后牙牙槽突、颧上颌支柱的腓骨瓣长轴变化分别为3.13°±3.78°、2.56°±3.17°、5.51°±4.39°,后两者间差异有统计学意义(P=0.023);在X-Z平面上分别为4.94°±4.75°、5.26°±10.25°、6.69°±6.52°,两两比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腓骨瓣主要的位置偏移方向均为向内侧、上方偏移。结论:术后1年与术后1周相比,腓骨瓣在矢状平面上的位置发生了显著性变化,在水平面上的位置变化不明显;腓骨瓣位置的改变主要以向内侧、上方偏移为主。

关键词: 上颌骨缺损, 游离腓骨瓣, 术后评价

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the position change of the fibular bone after maxillary reconstruction by free fibular flap and to analyze the factors affecting the position change. Methods: Patients who underwent maxillary reconstruction by free fibular flap in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from November 2012 to November 2016 were enrolled in this study. CT scans 1 week and 1 year postoperatively were collected and stored in DICOM format. The ProPlan CMF software was used to reconstruct the CT scans and separate the maxilla and each segment of the fibular flap. The Geomagic Control software was used to measure the long axis direction vector of each fibular segment. And the position change direction was recorded. The patients were divided into groups according to the use of the fibula or titanium plate to reconstruct the zygomaticmaxillary buttress. Results: A total of 32 patients were enrolled. Among them, 21 were in the titanium plate group and 11 in the fibula bone group. The angle between the long axis of the fibular segment and the X axis in the X-Y plane was 95.65°±53.49° and 95.53°±52.77°, 1 week and 1 year postoperatively, and there was no statistical difference (P>0.05). The angle between the long axis of the fibular segment and the X axis in the X-Z plane was 96.88°±69.76° and 95.33°±67.42°, respectively, with statistical difference (P=0.0497). The angular changes of the long axis of the fibular segment in the titanium plate group and the fibular bone group were 3.23°±3.93° and 1.94°±1.78°, respectively, and the angular changes in the X-Z plane were 6.02°±9.89° and 3.27°±2.31°, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups (P>0.05). The long axis changes of the fibular segment in the X-Y plane for reconstruction of the anterior alveolar, posterior alveolar, and buttress were 3.13°±3.78°, 2.56°±3.17°, and 5.51°±4.39°, respectively. There was a statistical difference (P = 0.023) between the posterior and buttress. In the X-Z plane, theses were 4.94°±4.75°, 5.26°±10.25°, 6.69°±6.52°, respectively. There was no statistical difference among the three groups (P>0.05). The main positional deviation directions of the titanium plate group and the fibular bone group were interior and superior sides, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: One year postoperatively, the position of the free fibular flap was changed compared with 1 week postoperatively. The position of the free fibular flap was mainly changed to the interior and superior sides.

Key words: Maxillary defect, Free fibular flap, Postoperative evaluation

中图分类号:

R782.4

康一帆,单小峰,张雷,蔡志刚. 游离腓骨瓣修复重建上颌骨术后腓骨瓣位置变化[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(5): 938-942.

Yi-fan KANG,Xiao-feng SHAN,Lei ZHANG,Zhi-gang CAI. Postoperative position change of fibular bone after reconstruction of maxillary defect using free fibular flap[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(5): 938-942.

图/表 5

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

参考文献 16

[1]	Peng X, Mao C, Yu GY, et al. Maxillary reconstruction with the free fibula flap[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2005,115(6):1562. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000160691.63029.74 pmid: 15861059
[2]	Kazaoka Y, Shinohara AK, Hasegawa T. Functional reconstruction after a total maxillectomy using a fibula osteocutaneous flap with osseointegrated implants[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1999,103(4):1244-1246. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199904040-00021 pmid: 10088513
[3]	Wijbenga JG, Schepers RH, Werker PM, et al. A systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life following reconstruction of maxillofacial defects using vascularized free fibula flaps and dental rehabilitation reveals poor data quality.[J]. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 2016,69(8):1024-1036. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.05.003 pmid: 27292287
[4]	Sozzi D, Novelli G, Silva R, et al. Implant rehabilitation in fibula-free flap reconstruction: A retrospective study of cases at 1-18 years following surgery[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2017,45(10):1655. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.06.021 pmid: 28823690
[5]	Frodel JL, Funk GF, Capper DT, et al. Osseointegrated implants: A comparative study of bone thickness in four vascularized bone flaps.[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1994,32(2):456-458.
[6]	王明一, 王慧珊, 杨劼, 等. 咬合引导的颌骨重建精确度分析及功能评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018,16(2):162-166.
[7]	沈毅, 孙坚, 李军, 等. 上颌骨功能性重建中用钛植入体重建颧上颌支柱的生物力学研究[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2011,9(3):198-203.
[8]	刘尚萍, 蔡志刚, 张杰, 等. 下颌骨缺损重建术后钛板相关并发症97例临床回顾研究[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2013,48(10):586-590.
[9]	Wolff J. The classic: On the inner architecture of bones and its importance for bone growth[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010,468(4):1056. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1239-2 pmid: 20162387
[10]	Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s law for clinicians[J]. Angle Orthod, 2004,74(1):3. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0003:AUOBPA>2.0.CO;2 pmid: 15038485
[11]	Wilkman T, Apajalahti S, Wilkman E, et al. A comparison of bone resorption over time: An analysis of the free scapular, iliac crest, and fibular microvascular flaps in mandibular reconstruction[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017,75(3):616-621. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.009 pmid: 27725102
[12]	Hölzle F, Watola A, Kesting MR, et al. Atrophy of free fibular grafts after mandibular reconstruction[J]. Plas Reconstr Surg, 2007,119(1):151. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000240703.02620.24
[13]	Mertens C, Decker C, Engel M, et al. Early bone resorption of free microvascular reanastomized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction: A comparison of iliac crest and fibula grafts[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2014,42(5):e217. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.08.010 pmid: 24269641
[14]	Li L, Blake F, Heiland M, et al. Long-term evaluation after mandibular reconstruction with fibular grafts versus microsurgical fibular flaps[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007,65(2):281-286. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.08.009 pmid: 17236934
[15]	Powell HR, Jaafar M, Bisase B, et al. Resorption of fibula bone following mandibular reconstruction for osteoradionecrosis[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014,52(4):375-378. pmid: 24613371
[16]	Kang YF, Liang J, He Z, et al. Cortical bone resorption of fibular bone after maxillary reconstruction with a vascularized fibula free flap: A computed tomography imaging study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019,48:1009-1014. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.008 pmid: 30979515

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Groups	Interior side (n = 46)		Exterior side (n = 15)		P value
Groups	Superior side (n = 37)	Inferior side (n = 9)	Superior side ( n = 10)	Inferior side (n = 5)	P value
Titanium plate	21	5	3	2	0.775
Fibular bone	16	4	7	3