Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4479_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Flap Design/Surgical Technique/Ducic Pearls
- •Advancement Flap
- •Rotational Flap
- •Transposition Flap
- •1: Local Flaps
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment Set
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •2: Facial Regional Flaps
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment Set
- •Flap Design/Surgical Technique
- •Paramedian Forehead Flap
- •Melolabial Flap
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •3: Nasal Reconstruction
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment Set
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •Implant Materials
- •Prosthetic Materials
- •Prosthetic Placement
- •Site-Specific Considerations
- •Auricular Reconstruction
- •Auricular Alloplastic Implant Reconstruction
- •Auricular Prosthetics
- •Nasal Reconstruction
- •Maxillary/Midface Reconstruction
- •Orbital Reconstruction
- •Ocular Implants
- •Orbital Prosthesis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Musculature
- •Innervation
- •Arterial Supply
- •Reconstructive Ladder Approach
- •Perioperative Care
- •Intraoperative Setup
- •Postoperative Care
- •Partial Thickness Reconstruction
- •Partial Thickness Defects: Vermillion
- •Secondary Intention
- •Vermillion Advancement Flap
- •FAMM Flap [17]
- •Partial Thickness Defects: Cutaneous
- •Primary Closure
- •Skin Grafting
- •Local Flaps
- •Ergotrid Flap
- •Melolabial Flap
- •Full Thickness Reconstruction
- •Special Considerations: Lower Lip
- •Small Defects
- •Larger Defects
- •Special Considerations: Upper Lip
- •Local Flaps
- •Bilateral Lip Advancement Flap
- •Stair-Step Advancement Flap
- •Alar Crescent Flap
- •Karapandzic Flap
- •Gillies Fan Flap
- •Bernard–von Burow (and Webster Modification)
- •Local Flaps: Cross-Lip Flaps
- •Abbe Flap
- •Extended Abbe Flap
- •Estlander Flap
- •Free Tissue Transfer
- •Radial Forearm Free Flap
- •Managing Microstomia
- •Commissuroplasty
- •Summary
- •References
- •6: Pectoralis Major Flap
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Neurovascular Supply
- •Advantages
- •Flap Usage
- •Case Examples
- •Complications
- •Disadvantages
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Flap Harvest
- •Important Considerations
- •References
- •7: Anterolateral Thigh Free Flap
- •Introduction/History
- •Anatomy
- •Arterial Anatomy
- •Venous Anatomy
- •Neural Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment Set
- •Flap Design/Surgical Technique/Ducic Pearls
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •8: Free Rectus Flap Reconstruction
- •Introduction
- •Operative Steps
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Flap Features
- •Pearls
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: The Radial Forearm Free Flap
- •Introduction/History
- •Anatomy
- •Indication/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrumentation
- •Donor Site Closure
- •Postoperative Management
- •Pearls/Pitfalls
- •References
- •10: Cervicodeltopectoral Flap
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Neurovascular Supply
- •Cervicodeltopectoral Flap Advantages
- •Cervicodeltopectoral Flap Disadvantages
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Flap Harvest
- •Important Considerations
- •Important Dimensions
- •Skin Island Dimensions
- •Artery
- •Vein
- •Nerve
- •Cervicodeltopectoral Flap Usage
- •Complications
- •Case Example
- •References
- •Introduction
- •History
- •Relevant Anatomy [and Nomenclature]
- •The Trapezius Muscle
- •Regional Anatomy
- •Blood Supply: Nomenclature
- •Flap Nomenclature
- •Operative Technique
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Positioning
- •Harvest Technique
- •Upper Trapezius Flap
- •Lower Trapezius Flap
- •Trapezius Free Flap
- •Donor-Site Morbidity
- •Limitations
- •Indications
- •Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •12: Supraclavicular Flap
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrumentation
- •Surgical Technique
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •13: The Free Fibula Flap
- •Introduction/History
- •Anatomy
- •Indication/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrumentation
- •Donor Site Closure
- •Postoperative Management
- •Pearls/Pitfalls
- •References
- •History
- •Vascular System
- •Muscle
- •Bone
- •Fasciocutaneous Flaps
- •Operative Technique
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Flap Harvest
- •Scapular Tip Flap
- •Chimeric Flaps
- •Fascial Flaps
- •Virtual Surgical Planning
- •Midface Reconstruction
- •Mandible Reconstruction
- •Dental Implants
- •Limitations
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •15: The Osteocutaneous Radial Forearm Free Flap
- •Introduction
- •Historical
- •Anatomy
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Clinical Exam
- •Imaging
- •Instrumentation/Requirements
- •Design/Technique
- •Patient Positioning
- •Radius Osteotomy
- •Proximal Donor Vessel Preparation
- •Nonvascularized Donor Site Reconstruction Techniques
- •Vascularized Soft Tissue Donor Site Reconstruction Techniques
- •Postop Management
- •Complications
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Iliac Crest Nonvascularized Bone Harvest
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Wound Closure
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Pearls
- •Discussion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Buccal Branch Identification
- •Masseteric Nerve Identification
- •Nerve Transfer
- •Pearls
- •References
- •18: Outpatient Periocular Reanimation
- •Introduction
- •Pretarsal Upper Eyelid Weight Placement
- •Lateral Tarsal Strip Canthoplasty
- •Pearls
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Fascia Lata Harvest
- •Static Facial Suspension
- •Pearls
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Recipient Site Preparation
- •Sural Nerve Harvest
- •Cross-Face Nerve Grafting
- •Sterno-omohyoid Muscle Flap Harvest
- •Sterno-omohyoid Muscle Flap Inset
- •Pearls
- •References
- •21: Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instruments/Equipment
- •Surgical Technique
- •Marking
- •Surgical Steps/Incisions
- •Closing/Suturing
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •22: Cleft Palate Repair
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instruments/Equipment Set
- •Flap Design/Surgical Technique/Pearls
- •Von Langenbeck Palatoplasty
- •Two-Flap Palatoplasty (Bardach)
- •Special Considerations
- •Postoperative Management
- •Outcomes
- •Oronasal Fistula Rate
- •Velopharyngeal Dysfunction
- •Facial Growth
- •Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
- •References
- •23: Mandible Trauma Reconstruction
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Body
- •Condylar
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment
- •Surgical Technique
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •24: Midface Trauma Reconstruction
- •Introduction/History
- •Anatomy
- •Classification
- •Clinical Assessment
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Instrument/Equipment Setup
- •Site-Specific Surgical Techniques
- •Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures
- •Le Fort II Fractures
- •Pan Facial Fractures
- •Pediatric Midface Fracture Management
- •Complications
- •References
- •25: Frontal Sinus Reconstruction
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Anterior Table
- •Posterior Table
- •Frontal Sinus Outflow Tract
- •Grafts
- •Autologous Bone Grafts
- •Alloplastic Implants
- •Titanium Mesh
- •Medpor (Porous Polyethylene)
- •PEEK (Polyether-Ether Ketone)
- •Hydroxyapatite Cement
- •Methyl Methacrylate
- •Pericranial Flap
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •26: Orbital Trauma Reconstruction
- •Intro/History
- •Anatomy
- •Indications/Contraindications
- •Preop Planning/Workup
- •Instruments/Setup
- •Surgical Technique/Pearls (Treatment)
- •Postop Management
- •References
- •27: Endoscopic Skull Base Reconstruction
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Surgical Technique: Endoscopic Skull Base Reconstruction
- •Grade 0
- •Grade 1
- •Grade 2
- •Grade 3
- •Intranasal Vascularized Pedicled Flaps
- •Nasoseptal Flap (Hadad-Bassagasteguy Flap)
- •Posterior Pedicle Inferior Turbinate Flap
- •Posterior Pedicle Middle Turbinate Flap
- •Regional Vascularized Extranasal Flaps
- •Endoscopic-Assisted Pericranial Flap
- •Temporoparietal Fascial Flap
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •28: Open (Anterior) Skull Base Repair
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Planning
- •Anatomic Factors
- •Patient Factors
- •Surgical Technique
- •Free Tissue Transfer
- •Temporoparietal Fascia Flap (TPFF)
- •Temporalis Muscle Flap
- •Postoperative Management
- •References
- •Index

22 Cleft Palate Repair
297
Special Considerations
In patients with wide clefts (>20mm), primary closure can be achieved with the
previously mentioned palatoplasty techniques. Successful closure can be maximized with the extension of the lateral releasing incisions around the posterior alveolus onto the soft palate toward the retromolar trigone, release of the levator veli
palatini muscles from both the oral and nasal mucosal aps to increase ap mobility, and circumferential dissection and release of the greater palatine neurovascular
pedicle with or without osteotomies. In those cases when excessive tension remains
(primary wide clefts, revision cases with signicant scar tissue), consideration can
be given to the use of acellular dermal matrix. The use of acellular dermal matrix
during palatoplasty when tension-free primary closure cannot be achieved may
reduce stula formation, with an overall stula rate of 5.4% compared to 10.6% in
those who did not undergo non-acellular dermal matrix palatoplasty [14].
A submucous cleft is characterized by dehiscence of the palatal musculature
with intact overlying mucosa, causing difculty in detection. Findings associated
with a submucous cleft include midline notching of the hard palate, bid uvula, and
a zona pellucida (a bluish tint in the soft palate signifying lack of underlying musculature). Management of submucous clefts can include minimally invasive palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP), intravelar veloplasty, Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty,
sphincter pharyngoplasty, and posterior pharyngeal ap. Currently, available data
are mixed, and a Cochrane review on the management of submucous clefts showed
no signicant difference in outcome between MIPP versus MIPP with a pharyngeal
ap or sphincter pharyngoplasty [15]. Calis et al. showed improved speech outcomes in patients undergoing submucous cleft repair with both Furlow doubleopposing Z-plasty and pharyngeal ap combined with intravelar veloplasty;
however, they suggested that pharyngeal ap repair be considered in patients with
severe hypernasality [16].
Postoperative Management
Depending on the surgeon’s preference, a tongue stitch can be placed in the midline
to assist with airway management in the post-anesthesia care unit and on the oor
[17]. This can be removed once the patient is deemed safe from any potential airway
obstruction. Patients are typically admitted for overnight observation to monitor for
airway obstruction and provided liquid pain medication. Soft arm restraints can be
used for those unable to follow commands to avoid disruption of the surgical site.
Under close supervision, these should be released several times a day and range of
motion exercises are encouraged. Patients are discharged once tolerating a pourable/pureed diet. Ideally, no straws or eating utensils are used during the healing
period to prevent possible damage to the suture lines. During hospitalization, caregivers are educated on proper feeding, which is maintained until the rst follow up visit.

298
A. A. Ong et al.
Outcomes
The goals of palatoplasty include complete closure of the oral and nasal mucosa
without the formation of a stula, velopharyngeal competence with normal speech
and feeding, minimal impact on facial skeletal growth, and improved Eustachian
tube function. This is dependent on cleft size and shape, type of repair, and surgeon
experience.
Oronasal Fistula Rate
Oronasal stula is a morbid complication resulting in hypernasality and nasal regurgitation. It is typically located at either the anterior hard palate or at the junction of
the hard and soft palate repair. The incidence of oronasal stula after primary cleft
palate repair is approximately 8.6% [18]. Risk factors for the formation of an oronasal stula include preoperative Veau classication (higher rate of stula with
class III/IV), cleft width (higher rate of stula with cleft width of ~7.75mm and
greater), nutritional status of the patient, and surgeon volume (higher volume protective against stula formation) [19–21]. The surgeon must pay special attention to
the closure by careful development of robust tissue aps and achieving a multilayer,
tension-free closure. Acellular dermal matrix can be used as an adjunct to reduce the
rate of oronasal stula formation [14].
Velopharyngeal Dysfunction
Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) results from the inadequate closure of the velopharynx during speech causing air escape through the nose during oral consonant
production. Symptomatically, patients develop hypernasal speech and nasal regurgitation during feeding. The estimated incidence of VPD following cleft palate
repair has been reported to be between 15 and 30%, with older age at the time of
repair (>2years) being a risk factor for the development of VPD, resulting in poorer
speech outcomes [22–24].
Management of VPD is complex and typically requires a multidisciplinary team,
including a cleft surgeon, speech-language pathologist, and/or maxillofacial prosthodontist. Speech therapy may be used as a primary treatment or adjunct to prosthetic rehabilitation or surgical intervention. Some patients, especially those who
are not surgical candidates, may benet from an obturator or palatal lift fashioned
by a maxillofacial prosthodontist. If surgical intervention is considered, it is individualized based on closure patterns identied on nasopharyngoscopy or uoroscopy; surgical interventions include posterior pharyngeal wall augmentation, palatal
lengthening, and/or alteration of the velopharynx (sphincter pharyngoplasty or posterior pharyngeal ap).
A prospective clinical trial compared the speech of two cohorts of patients with
cleft palate undergoing either Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty or a two-ap

22 Cleft Palate Repair
299
palatoplasty (von Langenbeck) and found that the Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty
resulted in better velopharyngeal function; however, the Furlow palatoplasty
resulted in higher rate of stula [25]. Intravelar veloplasty has been incorporated
into cleft palate repair and has been shown to signicantly improve postoperative
speech outcomes, resulting in a decrease of secondary velopharyngeal rates from
10.2 to 4.6% [26].
Facial Growth
There has been concern that cleft palate repair may inhibit facial growth, with a
particular focus on the timing of repair. Liao etal. suggested that patients who
underwent late hard palate repair had minimal adverse effects on the growth of the
maxilla [3]. On the other hand, other studies have found late repair resulted in no
impairments in maxillofacial growth, suggesting further research is necessary; however, late cleft palate repair resulted in higher rates of VPD and poorer speech outcomes [5, 24, 27]. Finally, some surgeons suggest less subperiosteal dissection of
the hard palate to prevent maxillary growth impairments and advocate a two-stage
approach to palatoplasty, in which the soft palate is repaired rst, followed by
delayed repair of the hard palate [28]. Ongoing research is needed to further dene
the effects of cleft palate repair on facial growth.
Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
Eustachian tube dysfunction, including chronic otitis media with effusion, affects
nearly all patients with cleft palate and is due to the anatomic disruption of the palatal muscular sling, causing an inability of the tensor veli palatini muscle to dilate the
eustachian tube [29]. The resultant middle ear effusion manifests as conductive
hearing loss, which can be improved with the placement of tympanostomy tubes,
palatoplasty, and/or hearing amplication.
Most patients with cleft palate who undergo palatoplasty will achieve improved
eustachian tube function by age 6years [30]. Smith etal. showed that patients with
cleft palate who underwent Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of tympanostomy tubes postoperatively (1.8 sets of tympanostomy tubes) compared to
those undergoing traditional two-ap palatoplasty (2.9 sets of tympanostomy tubes)
[31]. In addition, intravelar veloplasty, which restores the palatal muscular sling,
has been shown to improve eustachian tube function [32]. Despite eventual recovery
of eustachian tube function after palatoplasty, patients with cleft palate remain at
high risk for persistent hearing loss and for cholesteatoma, and these patients will
continue to benet from close otologic follow-up [33–35].

300
A. A. Ong et al.
References
1. Parker SE, Mai CT, Caneld MA, et al. Updated National Birth Prevalence estimates for
selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol.
2010;88(12):1008–16.
2. Tolarová MM, Cervenka J.Classication and birth prevalence of orofacial clefts. Am J Med
Genet. 1998;75(2):126–37.
3. Liao YF, Cole TJ, Mars M.Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in unilateral cleft lip
and palate: a longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):547–56.
4. Allori AC, Mulliken JB, Meara JG, Shusterman S, Marcus JR.Classication of cleft lip/palate:
then and now. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(2):175–88.
5. Liao YF, Mars M.Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):563–70.
6. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial
differences. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;55(1):137–156.
7. Dao AM, Goudy SL.Cleft palate repair, gingivoperiosteoplasty, and alveolar bone grafting.
Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2016;24(4):467–76.
8. Shaye D.Update on outcomes research for cleft lip and palate. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg. 2014;22(4):255–9.
9. Bessell A, Hooper L, Shaw WC, Reilly S, Reid J, Glenny AM. Feeding interventions for
growth and development in infants with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(2):CD003315.
10. Saothonglang K, Punyavong P, Winaikosol K, Jenwitheesuk K, Surakunprapha P.Risk factors
of stula following primary palatoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):587–90.
11. Téblick S, Ruymaekers M, Van de Casteele E, Nadjmi N. Effect of cleft palate closure
technique on speech and middle ear outcome: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2019;77(2):405.e401–15.
12. Furlow LT Jr. Cleft palate repair by double opposing Z-plasty. Plast Reconstr Surg.
1986;78(6):724–38.
13. Kirschner RE, Wang P, Jawad AF, et al. Cleft-palate repair by modied Furlow doubleopposing Z-plasty: the children’s hospital of Philadelphia experience. Plast Reconstr Surg.
1999;104(7):1998–2010; discussion 2011–1994.
14. Aldekhayel SA, Sinno H, Gilardino MS.Acellular dermal matrix in cleft palate repair: an
evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(1):177–82.
15. Nasser M, Fedorowicz Z, Newton JT, Nouri M.Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD006703.
16. Calis M, Ustun GG, Ozturk M, Gunaydin RO, Kulak Kayikci ME, Ozgur F.Comparison of
the speech results after correction of submucous cleft palate with Furlow palatoplasty and
pharyngeal ap combined with intravelar veloplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(1):e100–3.
17. Dorfman DW, Ciminello FS, Wong GB.Tongue suture placement after cleft palate repair. J
Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(5):1601–3.
18. Hardwicke JT, Landini G, Richard BM.Fistula incidence after primary cleft palate repair: a
systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):618e–27e.
19. Leu GR, Ebert BE, Roby BB, Scott AR.Cleft palate repair by otolaryngologist-head and neck
surgeons: risk factors for postoperative stula. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(6):1281–5.
20. Pollard SH, Skirko JR, Dance D, etal. Oronasal stula risk after palate repair. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 2021;58(1):35–41.
21. Yi CR, Kang MK, Oh TS.Analysis of the intrinsic predictors of oronasal stula in primary
cleft palate repair using intravelar veloplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(8):1024–31.
22. Schuster T, Rustemeyer J, Bremerich A, Günther L, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K. Analysis of
patients with a cleft of the soft palate with special consideration to the problem of velopharyngeal insufciency. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013;41(3):245–8.

22 Cleft Palate Repair
23. Sullivan SR, Marrinan EM, LaBrie RA, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB.Palatoplasty outcomes in
nonsyndromic patients with cleft palate: a 29-year assessment of one surgeon’s experience. J
Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 1):612–6.
24. Zhao S, Xu Y, Yin H, etal. Incidence of postoperative velopharyngeal insufciency in late palate repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(6):1602–6.
25. Williams WN, Seagle MB, Pegoraro-Krook MI, et al. Prospective clinical trial comparing
outcome measures between Furlow and von Langenbeck palatoplasties for UCLP.Ann Plast
Surg. 2011;66(2):154–63.
26. Sommerlad BC.A technique for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1542–8.
27. Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF, etal. Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term
analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(2):236–46.
28. Liao YF, Yang IY, Wang R, Yun C, Huang CS.Two-stage palate repair with delayed hard palate
closure is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 2010;125(5):1503–10.
29. Doyle WJ, Cantekin EI, Bluestone CD.Eustachian tube function in cleft palate children. Ann
Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1980;89(3 Pt 2):34–40.
30. Smith TL, DiRuggiero DC, Jones KR.Recovery of eustachian tube function and hearing outcome in patients with cleft palate. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;111(4):423–9.
31. Smith LK, Gubbels SP, MacArthur CJ, Milczuk HA.The effect of the palatoplasty method on
the frequency of ear tube placement. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(10):1085–9.
32. Hassan ME, Askar S.Does palatal muscle reconstruction affect the functional outcome of cleft
palate surgery? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(6):1859–65.
33. Funamura JL, Lee JW, McKinney S, Bayoumi AG, Senders CW, Tollefson TT.Children with
cleft palate: predictors of otologic issues in the rst 10 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
2019;160(5):902–10.
34. Harris L, Cushing SL, Hubbard B, Fisher D, Papsin BC, James AL.Impact of cleft palate type
on the incidence of acquired cholesteatoma. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(5):695–8.
35. Kappen IF, Schreinemakers JB, Oomen KP, etal. Hearing sensitivity in adults with a unilateral
cleft lip and palate after two-stage palatoplasty. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;94:76–81.
301

Part VII
Trauma Reconstruction

Mandible Trauma Reconstruction
23
AryaNamin andUgochukwuUmeh
Introduction
In the current era, most mandibular fractures are sustained in motor vehicle collisions, although interpersonal violence is the most common etiology in some series
[1, 2]. While the incidence of mandibular fractures has certainly increased with the
advent of the motor vehicle, these injuries have been a challenge to humans for millennia. In ancient times, mandible fractures were considered untreatable and fatal
injuries, likely due to infection and the functional impairment of untreated fractures
[3]. Hippocrates is one of the rst physicians to attempt the treatment of mandible
fractures [3, 4]. Hippocrates described a method of closed reduction, interdental
xation with gold wires, and external leather straps to help keep the mandible in
reduction [3, 4]. Little changed in the management of mandibular fractures until the
eighteenth century when dental splints were rst described in the management of
mandibular fractures. The nineteenth century saw the advent of attempts at open
reduction with internal xation via wires as well as the rst descriptions of maxillomandibular xation [3, 5]. Thomas Gunning was amongst those who described
maxillomandibular xation through interdental splinting, and a modication of the
Gunning splint is still an option in the management of edentulous patients today [6].
It was at the turn of the twentieth century that immobilization of mandibular fractures with plates and screws was rst described [3, 5]. During the 1960s, widespread
production of these plates and screws began, allowing for this technique to be more
widely utilized [3, 5].
The objectives of mandibular trauma reconstruction are restoring the premorbid
form and function of the mandible. This requires fracture reduction while in
A. Namin (*)
Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery Associates, Fort Worth, TX, USA
U. Umeh
Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2024
F. Sokoya, A. G. Vincent (eds.), Manual of Head and Neck Reconstruction,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65999-7_23
305

306
premorbid occlusion with adequate xation to allow for bone healing. Depending
on patient characteristics, fracture location, concomitant craniomaxillofacial injuries, and severity of fracture displacement, the treatment required to achieve these
goals can range from observation and soft diet to open reduction and internal xation with load-bearing reconstructions. In this chapter, the various reconstructive
options for condylar, ramus, angle, body, symphyseal, and parasymphyseal fractures will be discussed.
A. Namin and U. Umeh
Anatomy
The mandible consists of the condylar process, coronoid process, ramus, angle,
body, symphysis, parasymphysis, and alveolar process [7–10]. The symphysis is the
area of bone below the roots of the central incisors, and the parasymphysis is the
area of bone below the roots of the lateral incisors and canines [8]. The mandibular
body is the area of bone lateral to the canine and medial to the third molar [8]. The
angle and ramus of the mandible extend from a vertical line behind the third molar
to the outer mandibular angle posteroinferiorly and to the mandibular notch and
bases of the condylar and coronoid processes superiorly [8]. The condylar head
articulates with the glenoid fossa of the temporal bone. The condylar and coronoid
processes are separated by the mandibular notch. The condylar process continues
superiorly from the posterior border of the ascending ramus and can be broken
down into the condylar head, neck, and base [9]. The lateral pterygoid inserts onto
the pterygoid fovea of the condylar neck. The masseter and medial pterygoid muscles form a sling around the ramus and angle. The temporalis muscle inserts into the
coronoid process of the mandible. On the medial surface of the ramus, the inferior
alveolar neurovascular bundle enters the mandibular foramen. The mylohyoid
groove begins immediately anterior to the mandibular foramen and then travels
along the medial surface of the mandibular body. The mental foramen is found at the
level of the second premolar or at the interspace of the premolars.
Indications/Contraindications
Symphysis andParasymphysis
Symphyseal and parasymphyseal fractures typically require surgical treatment. In
nondisplaced and immobile fractures, no-chew diet can be considered. Surgical
treatment options for noncomminuted symphyseal and parasymphyseal fractures
include closed reduction with maxillomandibular xation, two-miniplate xation,
single thicker reconstruction plate xation, lag screw xation, and dynamic compression plate xation (Fig.23.1) [11]. Closed reduction with maxillomandibular
xation avoids the risks of internal xation with open reduction. However, it does
necessitate a prolonged period of immobilization, thus placing the patient at risk for
malnutrition and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. When utilizing open

23 Mandible Trauma Reconstruction
Fig. 23.1 Symphyseal fracture xated with a 2-mm thick locking plate along the inferior border
of mandible with the two bicortical screws on each side of the fracture line and a miniplate superior
to this with two monocortical screws on each side of the fracture line. The 2mm thick plate along
the inferior border was chosen due to the patient presenting 8weeks after the initial injury with a
concomitant infection that required treatment prior to the patient undergoing denitive repair
307
reduction internal xation, the patient should be temporarily placed in maxillomandibular xation to ensure premorbid occlusion. The advantages of miniplates are
ease in bending the plates to the appropriate contour of the mandible and, therefore,
improving the efciency of the surgery. Excellent functional results with minimal
complications have been obtained with the application of two 1-mm thick miniplates and monocortical screws in the treatment of noncomminuted symphyseal and
parasymphyseal fractures [11]. Lee etal. recommends prescribing a soft diet for
6 weeks after treatment of symphyseal and parasymphyseal fractures with two
miniplates and only leaving patients in maxillomandibular xation if the presence
of other craniomaxillofacial injuries necessitated this [11]. Locking plates provide
potential advantages of less screw loosening, greater stability, and less precise bending of the plate because of the internal/external xator principle [12]. However,
locking plates are more expensive, and a prospective trial comparing locking plates
to standard plates did not nd any signicant difference in short-term complication
rates [12]. Lag screw xation has been found to have similar outcomes as plate xation; however, this technique is associated with more intraoperative challenges in
obtaining proper xation [13].
Body
Mandibular body fractures commonly require treatment. In nondisplaced and
immobile fractures, a soft diet can be considered. Surgical treatment options for
mandibular body fractures include closed reduction with maxillomandibular xation, two-miniplate xation, single thicker reconstruction plate xation, and
dynamic compression plate xation. The application of a miniplate inferiorly with

308
A. Namin and U. Umeh
bicortical screws and a miniplate superiorly with monocortical screws offers a stable repair obviating the need for postoperative maxillomandibular xation [14]. The
plate thickness and need for bicortical screws is a debatable topic. However, a prospective study has found equivalent rates of fracture healing in patients treated with
thicker plates and bicortical screws and patients treated with thinner plates and
monocortical screws [15]. In sagittally and obliquely oriented fractures of the mandibular body and ramus, lag screws can offer a good option for repair. If lag screws
are utilized, at least two need to be placed in order for the repair to be stable.
Compression plate xation is less commonly utilized due to the unforgiving nature
of these plates. However, they have been successfully used in atrophic mandibles,
for which they were originally described [16]. In comminuted fractures and fractures with devitalized bone, a load-bearing reconstruction must be undertaken with
at least three bicortical screws on each side of the fracture (Figs.23.2 and 23.3) [17].
In cases where the devitalized bone is removed, resulting in an intervening gap, cellular bone matrix (ViviGen® Cellular Bone Matrix DePuy Synthes Companies),
autogenous bone grafting, or free tissue transfer should be employed to help prevent
nonunion (Figs.23.4 and 23.5) [17, 18].
Angle andRamus
Because of the forces of mastication, angle fractures have the highest risk of postsurgical complications, including infection [14, 19, 20]. Management of third
molars in mandibular angle fractures is a debatable subject and likely a contributing
factor to the increased complication rate seen in these fractures [19, 21]. When the
root is fractured, unsalvageable teeth due to caries or infection, unstable or loose
teeth, and teeth preventing adequate fracture reduction are considerations for
Fig. 23.2 Mandible
fracture after gunshot to
the face with comminution
and partial thickness
continuity defect along the
inferior border of the
mandible
R
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
