The Use Of Vascularized Myo-Osseous Fibula Free Flap To Reconstruct A Hemimandibular Defect With A Concomitant Skull Defect Arising From Stock Condylar Prosthesis Displacement Into The Middle Cranial Fossa
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Functional reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a controversial topic among ora... more Functional reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a controversial topic among oral and maxillofacial surgeons; this controversy becomes more complicated when one dives into the dilemma of the ideal reconstructive modality. TMJ defects might result from various etiologies, such as blunt or penetrating traumatic injuries, advanced degenerative joint disease, or various pathologic conditions, including benign and malignant conditions, that might arise from the TMJ or adjacent tissues. Reconstruction of the TMJ is vital because of its essential function in mastication, articulation, speech, and facial esthetics and symmetry. In the pediatric population, the TMJ acts as a growth center. TMJ reconstructive surgery might be influenced by various factors that can steer the surgeon toward adopting a specific reconstructive modality. These factors can be classified into preoperative factors that include the overall general health of the patient, expectations, and socioeconomic status that might be an obstacle in using custom-made solutions. The surgeon's experience, level of comfort, and training are crucial influencing factors. TMJ reconstructive options consist of autogenous grafts or alloplastic options. Autogenous grafts encompass 2 broad subcategories. The first is the vascularized option, and a good example is the vascularized fibula free flap. The second subcategory includes nonvascularized grafts, such as costochondral grafts and sternoclavicular grafts. Alloplastic grafts include various TMJ stock joints or custom-made patient-specific prostheses and stock condylar prostheses. The goals of TMJ reconstruction are to establish a pain-free normal range of mouth opening, stable occlusion, and absence of facial deformity. Complication rates in TMJ surgery are low and include surgical infection, nerve injury, failure or fracture of the prosthesis, or injury to adjacent structures. This report presents a case of a stock condylar prosthesis displaced into the middle cranial fossa, which was managed with a 2-stage approach of removing the displaced prosthesis and then reconstruction with a fibula vascularized free flap and a simultaneous contralateral sagittal split osteotomy.
Uploads
Papers by Waleed Zaid
Materials and Methods: An anonymous survey was created and electronically mailed to surgeons. We also reviewed the published data on orbital floor fractures using a PubMed and MEDLINE search. The responses to the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: The factors that had the greatest influence on the surgeon’s decision to operate were a defect size > 2 cm2, enophthalmos, entrapment, and persistent diplopia. The most common surgical approach reported was a preseptal transconjunctival approach (32.0%), followed by the subciliary (27.9%) and post- septal transconjunctival (26.2%) approaches. The most commonly reported implant for orbital reconstruc- tion was titanium (65.4%), followed by Medpor (43.7%) and composite Medpor and titanium (26.4%). The review of the published data showed a consensus among many of the operative indications mentioned, including a large defect size, enophthalmos, clinical entrapment, and persistent diplopia.
Conclusions: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States have a wide range of practice habits in the management of orbital floor fractures. Although the quality of the available evidence is poor, it supports a consistent approach to the management of orbital floor fractures in terms of the indications and surgical approach. The choice of reconstructive material and timing of repair remain more controversial. A clear need exists for improvement in the available data to help guide and set standards of care for the specialties managing orbital floor fractures.
Materials and Methods: An anonymous survey was created and electronically mailed to surgeons. We also reviewed the published data on orbital floor fractures using a PubMed and MEDLINE search. The responses to the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: The factors that had the greatest influence on the surgeon’s decision to operate were a defect size > 2 cm2, enophthalmos, entrapment, and persistent diplopia. The most common surgical approach reported was a preseptal transconjunctival approach (32.0%), followed by the subciliary (27.9%) and post- septal transconjunctival (26.2%) approaches. The most commonly reported implant for orbital reconstruc- tion was titanium (65.4%), followed by Medpor (43.7%) and composite Medpor and titanium (26.4%). The review of the published data showed a consensus among many of the operative indications mentioned, including a large defect size, enophthalmos, clinical entrapment, and persistent diplopia.
Conclusions: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States have a wide range of practice habits in the management of orbital floor fractures. Although the quality of the available evidence is poor, it supports a consistent approach to the management of orbital floor fractures in terms of the indications and surgical approach. The choice of reconstructive material and timing of repair remain more controversial. A clear need exists for improvement in the available data to help guide and set standards of care for the specialties managing orbital floor fractures.