Relationship between prognosis and different surgical treatments of zygomatic defects: A retrospective study

  • Lin LAN ,
  • Yang HE ,
  • Jin-gang AN ,
  • Yi ZHANG
Expand
  • Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China

Received date: 2020-04-13

  Online published: 2022-04-13

Supported by

National Key R&D Program of China(2017YFB1104103)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect and summarize the characteristics of different treatment methods in repairing zygomatic defect. Methods: A total of 37 patients with zygomatic defect were reviewed in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from August 2012 to August 2019. According to the anatomical scope of defect, the zygomatic defects were divided into four categories: Class 0, the defect did not involve changes in zygomatic structure or continuity, only deficiency in thickness or projection; Class Ⅰ, defect was located in the zygomatic body or involved only one process; Class Ⅱ, a single defect involved two processes; Class Ⅲa, referred to a single defect involving three processes and above; Class Ⅲb, referred to zygomatic defects associated with large maxillary defects. The etiology, defect time, defect size and characteristics of zygomatic defects, the repair and reconstruction methods, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) data were collected to evaluate the outcome of zygomatic protrusion. Chromatographic analysis was used to assess the postoperative stability. Results: Among the causes of defects, 25 cases (67.57%) were caused by trauma, and 11 cases (29.73%) were of surgical defects following tumor resection. We performed autologous bone grafts in 19 cases, 6 cases underwent vascularized tissue flap,5 cases underwent external implants alone, and 7 cases underwent vascularized tissue flap combined with external implants. After the recovery of the affected side, the average difference of the zygomatic projection between the navigation group and the non-navigation group was 0.45 mm (0.20-2.50 mm) and 1.60 mm (0.10-2.90 mm), with a significant difference (P=0.045). Two patients repaired with titanium mesh combined with anterolateral thigh flap had obvious deformation or fracture of titanium mesh; 2 patients with customized casting prosthesis had infection after surgery and fetched out the prosthesis finally. Conclusion: Autologous free grafts or alloplastic materials may be used in cases without significant structural changes. Pedicle skull flap or vascularized bone tissue flap is recommended for zygomatic bone defects with bone pillar destruction, chronic inflammation, oral and nasal communication or significant soft tissue insufficiency. Titanium mesh can be used to repair a large defect of zygomatic bone, and it is suggested to combine with vascularized bone flap transplantation.

Cite this article

Lin LAN , Yang HE , Jin-gang AN , Yi ZHANG . Relationship between prognosis and different surgical treatments of zygomatic defects: A retrospective study[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2022 , 54(2) : 356 -362 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.02.025

References

[1] Kokemueller H, Tavassol F, Rücker M, et al. Complex midfacial reconstruction: A combined technique of computer-assisted surgery and microvascular tissue transfer[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(11):2398-2406.
[2] Zunz E, Blanc O, Leibovitch I. Traumatic orbital floor fractures: Repair with autogenous bone grafts in a tertiary trauma center[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(3):584-592.
[3] 白萍, 刘和荣, 郝月军. Medpor在眼眶重建和眼球内陷复位手术中的应用[J]. 中国美容医学, 2004, 13(3):353-354.
[4] Butscher A, Bohner M, Hofmann S, et al. Structural and material approaches to bone tissue engineering in powder-based three-dimensional printing[J]. Acta Biomater, 2011, 7(3):907-920.
[5] Pensler J, McCarthy JG. The calvarial donor site: An anatomic study in cadavers[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1985, 75(5):648-651.
[6] Markowitz NR. Cranial bone grafting in oral and maxillofacial surgery[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 1992, 123(7):206-211.
[7] Tatum SA, Kellman RM. Cranial bone grafting in maxillofacial trauma and reconstruction[J]. Facial Plast Surg, 1998, 14(1):117-129.
[8] Kusiak JF, Zins JE, Whitaker LA. The early revascularization of membranous bone[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1985, 76(4):510-516.
[9] Rogers GF, Greene AK. Autogenous bone graft: Basic science and clinical implications[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2012, 23(1):323-327.
[10] Movahed R, Pinto LP, Morales-Ryan C, et al. Application of cranial bone grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities[J]. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent), 2013, 26(3):252-255.
[11] Vandervord JG, Watson JD, Teasdale GM. Forehead reconstruction using a bi-pedicled bone flap[J]. Br J Plast Surg, 1982, 35(1):75-79.
[12] He W, Gong X, He Y, et al. Application of a lateral pedicled cranial bone flap for the treatment of secondary zygomaticomaxillary defects[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2019, 30(7):e661-e664.
[13] Gerressen M, Pastaschek CI, Riediger D, et al. Microsurgical free flap reconstructions of head and neck region in 406 cases: A 13-year experience[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 71(3):628-635.
[14] Ghassemi A, Ghassemi M, Riediger D, et al. Comparison of donor-site engraftment after harvesting vascularized and nonvascularized iliac bone grafts[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(8):1589-1594.
[15] Takano M, Sugahara K, Koyachi M, et al. Maxillary reconstruction using tunneling flap technique with 3D custom-made titanium mesh plate and particulate cancellous bone and marrow graft: A case report[J]. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg, 2019, 41(1):43.
[16] Ghanaati S, Al-Maawi S, Conrad T, et al. Biomaterial-based bone regeneration and soft tissue management of the individualized 3D-titanium mesh: An alternative concept to autologous transplantation and flap mobilization[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2019, 47(10):1633-1644.
[17] Zhang WB, Yu Y, Mao C, et al. Outcomes of zygomatic complex reconstruction with patient-specific titanium mesh using computer-assisted techniques[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019, 77(9):1915-1927.
[18] Mischkowski RA, Selbach I, Neugebauer J, et al. Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve and iliac crest bone grafts:Anatomical and clinical considerations[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2006, 35(4):366-372.
[19] Wei FC, Celik N, Yang WG, et al. Complications after reconstruction by plate and soft-tissue free flap in composite mandibular defects and secondary salvage reconstruction with osteocutaneous flap[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2003, 112(1):37-42.
[20] Hidalgo DA, Pusic AL. Free-flap mandibular reconstruction: A 10-year follow-up study[J]. Plastic Reconstr Surg, 2002, 110(2):438-449.
[21] Nickels L. World’s first patient-specific jaw implant[J]. Metal Powder Report, 2012, 67(2):12-14.
[22] Macheras G, Kateros K, Kostakos A, et al. Eight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2009, 24(5):705-709.
[23] Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, et al. Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015, 473(2):521-527.
Outlines

/