Добавил:

Sekretar kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.

Вуз:

Ростовский Государственный Медицинский Университет

Предмет:

Медицина общая

Файл:

Книга_4496_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf

Скачиваний:

Добавлен:

31.08.2026

Размер:

36 Мб

Скачать

☆

<<< < Предыдущая 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3031 / 3531 32 33 34 35 > Следующая >>>

308

https://t.me/medicina_free

G. Lauer

6. Gellrich N-C, Kwon TG, Lauer G, Fakler O, Gutwald R, Otten J-E, Schmelzeisen R. The lateral upper arm free ap for intraoral reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;29:104–11.

7. Leonhardt H, Mai R, Pradel W, Markwardt J, Pinzer T, Spassov A, Lauer G.Free DIEP-ap reconstruction of tumour related defects in head and neck. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008;59(Suppl 5):59–67.

8. Soutar DS, Scheker LR, Tanner NSB, McGregor IA. The radial forearm ap: a versatile method for intraoral reconstruction. Br J Plas Surg. 1983;36:1–8.

9. Umeda T. Experimental autotransplantation of full thickness skin into the mouth. Oral Surg. 1969;23:709–15.

10. Medawar PB. The cultivation of adult mammalian skin epithelium in vitro. Quart J Micr Sci. 1948;89:187–90.

11. Peehl DM, Ham RG.Clonal growth of human keratinocytes with small amounts of dialyzed serum. In Vitro. 1980;16:526–40.

12. Rheinwald JG, Green H.Serial cultivation of strains of human epidermal keratinocytes: the formation of keratinizing colonies from single cells. Cell. 1975;6:331–44.

13. Gallico GG, O’Connor NE, Compton CC, Kehinde O, Green H.Permanent coverage of large burn wounds with autologous cultured human epithelium. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:448–51.

14. O’Connor NE, Mulliken JB, Banks-Schlegel S, Kehinde O, Green H.Grafting of burns with cultured epithelium prepared from autologous epidermal cells. Lancet. 1981;10:75–9.

15. DeLuca M, Albanese E, Megna M, Cancedda R, Mangiante PE, Cadoni A, Franzi AT. Evidence that human oral epithelium reconstituted in vitro and transplanted onto patients with defects in the oral mucosa retains properties of the original donor site. Transplantation. 1990;5:454–9.

16. Langdon JD, Leigh IM, Navsaria HA, Williams DM. Autologous oral keratinocyte grafts in the mouth. Lancet. 1990;335:1472–3.

17. Raghoebar GM, Tomson AM, Scholma J, Blaauw EH, Witjes MJ, Vissink A.Use of cultured mucosal grafts to cover defects caused by vestibuloplasty: an invivo study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53:872–6.

18. Arenholt-Bindslev D, Jepsen A, Mac Callum DK, Lillie JH. The growth and structure of human oral keratinocytes in culture. J Invest Dermatol. 1987;88:314–9.

19. Lauer G.Autografting of feeder-cell free cultured gingival epithelium—method and clinical application. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1994;22:18–22.

20. Southgate J, Williams HK, Trejdosiewicz LK, Hodges GM. Primary culture of human oral epithelial cells. Growth requirements and expression of differentiated characteristics. Lab Inv. 1987;56:211–23.

21. Lauer G, Otten JE, von Specht BU, Schilli W.Cultured gingival epithelium. A possible suitable material

for pre-prosthetic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1991;19:21–6.

22. Lauer G, Siegmund C, Hübner U. Inuence of donor age and culture conditions on tissue engineering of mucosa autografts. Int J Oral Max Surg. 2003;32:305–12.

23. Johnson MC, Meyer AA, de Serres S, Herzog S, Peterson HD.Persistence of fetal bovine serum proteins in human keratinocytes. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11:504–9.

24. Lauer G. Autogenous serum for culturing keratinocyte autografts. In: Phillips GO, von Versen R, Strong DM, Nather A, editors. Advances in tissue banking, vol. 1. Singapore: World Scientic; 1997. p.183–7.

25. Green H. Cyclic AMP in relation to proliferation of the epidermal cell: a new view. Cell. 1978;15:801–11.

26. Gutwald R, Lauer G, Otten JE, Schilli W.Epithelzellen und Fibroblasten der Gingiva auf resorbierbaren Membranen—Gewebetransfer zur Wundheilung? Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1994;49:1015–8.

27. Pradel W, Blank A, Lauer G. Klinischer Einsatz von im Tissue Engineering hergestellten Gingivakeratinozyten-GingivafibroblastenKonstrukten als Weichgewebsersatz. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 2002;57:709–12.

28. Thomson RC, Giordano GG, Collier JH, Ishaug SL, Mikos AG, Lahiri-Munir D, Garcia CA.Manufacture and characterization of poly (α-hydroxy ester) thin lms as temporary substrates for retinal pigment epithelium cells. Biomaterials. 1996;17:321–7.

29. Hotta T, Yokoo S, Terashi H, Komori. Clinical and histopathological analysis of healing process of intraoral reconstruction with exvivo produced oral mucosa equivalent. Kobe J Med Sci. 2007;53:1–14.

30. Izumi K, Feinberg SE, Iida A, Yoshizawa M.Intraoral grafting of an exvivo produced oral mucosa equivalent: a preliminary report. Int J Oral Max Surg. 2003;32:188–97.

31. El Ghalbzouri A, Lamme E, Ponec M.Crucial role of broblasts in regulating epidermal morphogenesis. Cell Tissue Res. 2002;310:189–99.

32. Karing T, Lang NP, Loe H.The role of connective tissue in determining epithelial differentiation. J Periodontal Res. 1975;10:1–10.

33. Ouhayoun JP, Sawaf MH, Goffaux JC, Etienne D, Forest N.Re-epithelialization of a palatal connective tissue graft transplanted in a non-keratinized alveolar mucosa: a histological and biochemical study in humans. J Periodontal Res. 1988;23:127–33.

34. Tomakidi P, Breitkreuz D, Fusenig NE, Zöller J, Kohl A, Komposch G.Establishment of oral mucosa phenotype invitro in correlation to epithelial anchorage. Cell Tissue Res. 1998;292:355–66.

35. Lauer G, Schimming R, Frankenschmidt A.Intraoral wound closure with tissue engineered mucosa—new

22 Oral Mucosa Tissue Engineering inCraniofacial Surgery

https://t.me/medicina_free

309

perspectives for urethra reconstruction with buccal mucosa graft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:25–33.

36. Lauer G, Schimming R, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R.Prelaminating the fascial radial forearm ap by tissue engineered mucosa—improvement of donor and recipient site. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1564–72.

37. Mitchell DL, Synnott SA, Van Dercreek JA.Tissue reaction involving an intraoral skin graft and CP titanium abutments: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5:79–84.

38. Schrott AR, Jimenez M, Hwang JW, Fiorellini J, Weber HP. Five-year evaluation of the inuence of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant soft-tissue health and stability around implants supporting full-arch mandibular xed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1170–7.

39. Clark HB.Deepening of the labial sulcus by mucosal ap advancement. J Oral Surg. 1953;11:165–8.

40. Ewers R, Hoffmeister B. Reconstruction of the mandibular denture bearing area and freeing of the tongue after tumor surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;46:272–5.

41. Hillerup S.Preprosthetic mandibular vestibuloplasty with buccal mucosal graft—a 2-year follow-up study. Int J Oral Surg. 1982;11:81–8.

42. Lauer G, Schimming R. Tissue-engineered mucosa graft for reconstruction of the intraoral lining after freeing of the tongue: a clinical and immunohistologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59:167–9.

43. Yang G, Chen B, Gao Y.Forearm free skin ap transplantation. Natl Med J China. 1981;61:139.

44. Millesi W, Millesi-Schobel G, Glaser C.Reconstruction of the oor of the mouth with fascial radial forearm ap prelaminated with autologous mucosa. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;27:106–10.

Part XI

https://t.me/medicina_free

Biological Procedures in Craniofacial

Reconstruction: Microsurgery

Microsurgical Jaw Reconstruction

https://t.me/medicina_free

MajeedRana andHenrietteMöllmann

Introduction: Mandibular Defects

The loss of continuity caused by trauma, defects following tumor disease, or inammation (i.e., osteonecrosis or osteomyelitis) signicantly impairs functions such as chewing, swallowing, speaking, and breathing. Microsurgery allows restoring mandibular continuity through free bone grafting, microvascular grafts, or reconstruction with allogeneic and alloplastic materials. Technological advancements in computer-assisted surgery (CAS) provide the foundation for sustainable procedures. Depending on the localization as well as the extent of mandibular defects, there are considerable functional and aesthetic deteriorations.

Defects located in the lateral mandible or in the area of the ascending mandibular branch heavily impact the ability of chewing and swallowing. Due to a loss of continuity around the chin, the tongue loses its support. Along with issues of chewing and swallowing, patients are endangered due to possible obstruction of the upper respiratory tract. Furthermore, psychological as well as social consequences frequently occur, which might negatively inuence social

M. Rana (*) · H. Möllmann Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University (HHU), Düsseldorf, Germany e-mail: rana@med.uni-duesseldorf.de;

henriettelouise.moellmann@med.uni-duesseldorf.de

life and interactions. Thus, a functional and aesthetically appealing result using CAS represents an indispensable component for mandibular reconstruction.

the 1970s completely changed the therapeutic concept. This technique allows different bone grafts, also possible in combination with soft tissue, which might be harvested from areas distant from the defect and transplanted into the head and neck region. Here, primary or secondary reconstruction is possible. Depending on the underlying diagnosis, primary osseous reconstruction is preferred in the case of fractures or chronic osteomyelitis as well as in the case of resections due to benign lesions. In the case of malignant underlying diseases, temporary xation by means of a reconstruction plate and secondary reconstruction is rarely performed. Through CAS, the size and extent of the tumor, the safety distances, the resection margins, as well as the reconstruction can be planned preoperatively, visualized, and further implemented intraoperatively.

option of an obturator in the sense of a defect prosthesis [1] is not possible. The continuity of the mandible can be restored using microvascular grafts from different donor regions. Besides the quality, quantity, and shape of the bone, the variability and volume of the required soft tissue, the length of the pellicle, and the morbidity of the

The introduction of microvascular surgery in

Unlike reconstruction in the maxilla, the

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28069-6_23

313

314

https://t.me/medicina_free

M. Rana and H. Möllmann

donor region are of particular relevance when selecting the appropriate graft. For the reconstruction of the mandible, donor regions such as the bula, the scapula, as well as the iliac crest [2] are highly suitable for clinical and surgical demands. Along with the restoration of continuity, masticatory rehabilitation following reconstruction is also of great importance.

Virtual Planning

Three-dimensional virtual surgical planning (3DVSP) uses three-dimensional imaging datasets from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the defect site as well as CT angiography of the graft harvest site. Depending on the underlying disease, CT scans provide high resolution of both hard and soft tissues in the case of bony defects or bone erosion. In the case of soft tissue tumors and inammatory diseases such as osteomyelitis, MRI scans can further enhance soft tissue imaging. For improving the overall image quality, the strengths of the imaging modalities can be exploited by fusing and combining CT and MRI datasets using new software programs. After merging the desired datasets, the mandible and adjacent structures are initially segmented. Intelligent software segments are semiautomatically based on algorithms, which simplies planning and shortens the overall duration [3]. In the context of virtual planning, the size and extent of the tumor, the resection margins, and the desired reconstruction can thus be planned preoperatively, visualized, and then implemented intraoperatively. For the planning of the intraoperative navigation, special dental splints are manufactured and placed or screws are inserted before the preoperative imaging. Intraoperatively, the digital planning and the clinical situation are merged via a navigation tripod temporarily attached to the skull. During the operation, navigation can be used to directly verify the targeted resection and the correct positioning of the patient-specic implants (PSI) and graft [4]. In addition to intraoperative navigation, preoperative planning can also serve as a basis for postoperative performance monitoring. By

merging the pre- and postoperative CT scans, the accuracy of t can be validated [5]. For a functional and aesthetically appealing reconstruction, the opposite side can be used as reference or template for achieving a symmetrical result. Besides the intersegmental cutting and visualization of the microsurgical reconstruction, the dental and prosthetic rehabilitation can also be considered, simulated, and planned [6]. If the prosthetic rehabilitation is already addressed at an early stage, the procedure is referred to functional or prosthetically oriented backward planning. Thereby, the condylar position and intermaxillary relationship are reproduced, visualized preoperatively, or planned. Thus, the entire functional and dental rehabilitation is achievable. Virtual planning further allows visualization of different reconstruction possibilities enabling a completely individualized treatment concept for the patient without invasive procedures. However, not only surgeons should benet from the possibility of visualizing the surgical site in the future. The development of virtual reality devices will also provide access to the planned operation for patients. Regarding patient education, the operation is presented in a more illustrative and tangible way, increasing the transparency of the treatment concept [7].

Patient-Specic Implants (PSIs)

Advancements in CAS, particularly regarding computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology, are superior to more traditional methods of mandibular reconstruction with hand-bent plates [8–15]. CAD/ CAM or selective laser melting (SLM) plates achieve higher accuracy compared to manually bent reconstruction plates. These plates provide greater results in terms of strength and intraoperative positioning [16]. Decisive factors for this procedure are anatomical and symmetrical bone shaping, restoration of a stable dental occlusion, and condylar repositioning into a centric relation [9, 17–20].

In the conventional technique, in contrast to

CAS, the plates are bent intraoperatively or pre-

23 Microsurgical Jaw Reconstruction

https://t.me/medicina_free

315

operatively manually before their adaptation. Depending on the complexity of the case and the skills as well as experience of the surgeon, this procedure might be very time consuming. The standard plates offered by manufacturers do not always possess the required size and number of holes for the intraoperative situation. PSIs do not need to be bent to t the patient’s mandible and do not require predened bending points as with conventional reconstruction [21, 22]. With improvements of CAD/CAM, it is possible to accurately plan the reconstruction of craniofacial defects preoperatively, manufacture precise PSI, and place them in less complex surgeries with shorter operating times [12, 23–25]. The implant can be designed and shaped by the surgeon according to the defect size, shape, and morphology [26, 27]. By selecting the appropriate design method, manufacturing process, and implant material, it is possible to perform a precise surgical procedure and reduce complications [28–35]. The integration of this technology in the pre- and intraoperative workow has simplied the production of cutting guides and has been shown to shorten the operation time and the length of stay and to improve osseous consolidation, symmetry, and morphology [34, 36, 37]. Recent research demonstrated additional advantages, for instance, minimized interoperator variability caused by the surgeon’s experience and improved teaching possibilities for younger colleagues involved in the planning procedures/sessions with a senior consultant and/or biomedical engineer [38].

Computer-Assisted Reconstruction oftheMandible Using Microvascular Grafts

After continuity resections of the lower jaw in case of carcinoma, osteonecrosis, osteomyelitis, or trauma, a mandibular reconstruction is essential to restore function and aesthetics [6, 39]. The size of the defect is determined by the preoperative extent, the entity of the pathology, and the resulting radicality of the resection.

Defects of the mandible are reconstructible using either a reconstruction plate without bony reconstruction or immediately with a combina-

tion of reconstruction plate and primary bone ap. Despite the considerable progress in microvascular surgery, complications such as tissue necrosis, failure of the graft, infections (donor site or recipient), prolonged hospital stay, and long recovery process occur [40–42].

Fibula, scapula, or iliac crest grafts are suitable for the clinical requirements for reconstruction of the mandible, in the sense of a free tissue transfer.

Fibula-Tx

The microvascular bula graft ingests a major role in computer-assisted reconstruction of the mandible and in dental rehabilitation. It provides a similar cross section as an atrophied mandible, shows good corticoid bone quality and special vascularization, and can be harvested up to a length of 20–25cm [43].

Nevertheless, not every patient can undergo bular grafting as in 6% of cases a nonunion of the anterior or posterior tibial artery is present [22]. In more than 1% of cases, the peroneal or bular artery is the only vessel supplying the entire lower leg making microsurgical bular transfer impossible. Angiography of the donor region is used to check whether transplantation is advisable, where the perforators are located, and how the graft can be obtained in an individualized manner. During virtual planning, the harvesting templates including drill holes are individually designed so that the number and position of the perforators are considered along with the planned osteotomy lines. This also facilitates the removal of a suitable skin transplant. Due to the digital and visualized planning as well as the facilitated handling, ischemia and operation time can be shortened, and an optimal aesthetic and functional result is achievable.

Scapula-Tx

The microvascular scapula graft is highly appropriate for reconstruction of the mandible [44], especially if a bula graft is not possible due to peripheral vascular arteriopathy [45]. The lateral

316

https://t.me/medicina_free

M. Rana and H. Möllmann

scapula edge with the maximal length of 14cm can be used for bony reconstruction [46]. The circumex scapular artery supplies the lateral scapula as the terminal branch of the subscapular artery and equips the soft tissue above the scapula via two other vascular branches. This special vascular anatomy allows two independent fasciocutaneous aps, the scapular and the parascapular aps, to be harvested simultaneously for soft tissue reconstruction with one pellicle [45]. Therefore, this transplant can be primarily used for the reconstruction of combined defects where intraoral and extraoral soft tissue reconstruction is necessary as well as bony reconstruction. Compared to the removal of the bula graft, a change of position must be performed intraoperatively. When harvesting the scapula graft, it is not possible to operate in two teams and save operating time.

Iliac Crest-Tx

The iliac crest transplant is further suitable for microsurgical reconstruction of the mandible. Supplied via the circumex ilium profunda artery, the iliac crest graft is a valid graft because of the good bone quality, the slightly curved contour, and the bone volume. The special bone structure can facilitate the desired dental rehabilitation [47]. Nevertheless, the special vascular supply (short pellicle) makes microsurgical anastomosis difcult. Thus, strict indication and concrete preoperative planning are advisable.

References

1. Phasuk K, Haug SP. Maxillofacial prosthetics. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2018;30(4):487–97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2018.06.009.

2. Mascha F, Winter K, Pietzka S, Heufelder M, Schramm A, Wilde F.Accuracy of computer-assisted mandibular reconstructions using patient-specic implants in combination with CAD/CAM fabricated transfer keys. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(11):1884–97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.08.028.

3. Rana M, Modrow D, Keuchel J, Chui C, Rana M, Wagner M, Gellrich N-C.Development and evaluation of an automatic tumor segmentation tool: a compari-

son between automatic, semi-automatic and manual segmentation of mandibular odontogenic cysts and tumors. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(3):355–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.12.005.

4. Schramm A, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Barth EL, Essig H, Bormann K-H, Kokemueller H, etal. Computerassisted navigation in craniomaxillofacial tumors. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(4):1067–74. https://doi.

org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181760fc0.

5. Scolozzi P, Schouman T. Unité interventionnelle hybride multimodale: de la planication préopératoire au contrôle postopératoire immédiat. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2012;113(2):115–23. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.stomax.2012.01.009.

6. Essig H, Rana M, Kokemueller H, von See C, Ruecker M, Tavassol F, Gellrich N-C.Pre-operative planning for mandibular reconstruction—a full digital planning workow resulting in a patient specic reconstruction. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3(1):45. https://doi.

org/10.1186/1758- 3284- 3- 45.

7. Pandrangi VC, Gaston B, Appelbaum NP, Albuquerque FC, Levy MM, Larson RA.The application of virtual reality in patient education. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;59:184–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

avsg.2019.01.015.

8. Antony AK, Chen WF, Kolokythas A, Weimer KA, Cohen MN. Use of virtual surgery and stereolithography- guided osteotomy for mandibular reconstruction with the free bula. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(5):1080–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/

PRS.0b013e31822b6723.

9. Eckardt A, Swennen GRJ.Virtual planning of composite mandibular reconstruction with free bula bone graft. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16(6):1137–40. https://

doi.org/10.1097/01.scs.0000186306.32042.96.

10. Gil RS, Roig AM, Obispo CA, Morla A, Pagès CM, Perez JL. Surgical planning and microvascular reconstruction of the mandible with a bular ap using computer-aided design, rapid prototype modelling, and precontoured titanium reconstruction plates: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

bjoms.2014.09.015.

11. Hallermann W, Olsen S, Bardyn T, Taghizadeh F, Banic A, Iizuka T.A new method for computer-aided operation planning for extensive mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2431–7.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000219076.83890.e8.

12. Nilsson J, Hindocha N, Thor A.Time matters—differences between computer-assisted surgery and conventional planning in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(2):132–40. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.024.

13. Powcharoen W, Yang W-F, Yan Li K, Zhu W, Su Y-X. Computer-assisted versus conventional freehand mandibular reconstruction with bula free ap: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(6):1417–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/

PRS.0000000000006261.

23 Microsurgical Jaw Reconstruction

https://t.me/medicina_free

317

14. Rodby KA, Turin S, Jacobs RJ, Cruz JF, Hassid VJ, Kolokythas A, Antony AK. Advances in oncologic head and neck reconstruction: systematic review and future considerations of virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(9):1171–85.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.038.

15. Wilde, et al. Computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction using a patient-specic reconstruction plate fabricated with computer-aided design and manufacturing techniques. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014;7(2):158–66. https://doi.

org/10.1055/s- 0034- 1371356.

16. Rana M, Chin S-J, Muecke T, Kesting M, Groebe A, Riecke B, etal. Increasing the accuracy of mandibular reconstruction with free bula aps using functionalized selective laser-melted patient-specic implants: a retrospective multicenter analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(8):1212–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jcms.2017.04.003.

17. Bak M, Jacobson AS, Buchbinder D, Urken ML. Contemporary reconstruction of the mandible. Oral Oncol. 2010;46(2):71–6. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.11.006.

18. Hidalgo DA, Pusic AL. Free-ap mandibular reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(2):438–49. https://doi.

org/10.1097/00006534- 200208000- 00010.

19. Sonmez N, Gultekin P, Turp V, Akgungor G, Sen D, Mijiritsky E. Evaluation of ve CAD/CAM materials by microstructural characterization and mechanical tests: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/

s12903- 017- 0458- 2.

20. Wagner M, Gander T, Blumer M, Valdec S, Schumann P, Essig H, Rücker M. Die CAD/CAMrevolution in der kraniofazialen Rekonstruktion. Praxis. 2019;108(5):321–8. https://doi.

org/10.1024/1661- 8157/a003185.

21. Rendenbach C, Sellenschloh K, Gerbig L, Morlock MM, Beck-Broichsitter B, Smeets R, et al. CADCAM plates versus conventional xation plates for primary mandibular reconstruction: a biomechanical in vitro analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(11):1878–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jcms.2017.08.024.

22. Telschow T, Wilde F, Pietzka S, Schramm A, Mascha F. Unbreakable? Frakturen patientenspezischer Implantate nach alloplastischer Unterkieferrekonstruktion. MKG-Chirurg. 2019;12(4):263–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s12285- 019- 00220- x.

23. Bartier S, Mazzaschi O, Benichou L, Sauvaget E.Computer-assisted versus traditional technique in bular free-ap mandibular reconstruction: a CT symmetry study. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2021;138(1):23–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

anorl.2020.06.011.

24. Ren W, Gao L, Li S, Chen C, Li F, Wang Q, et al. Virtual planning and 3D printing modeling for man-

dibular reconstruction with bula free ap. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018;23(3):e359–66. https://doi.

org/10.4317/medoral.22295.

25. Serrano C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Martelli N. Benefits of 3D printing applications in jaw reconstruction: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47(9):1387–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jcms.2019.06.008.

26. Shan X-F, Chen H-M, Liang J, Huang J-W, Cai Z-G. Surgical reconstruction of maxillary and mandibular defects using a printed titanium mesh. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(7):1437.e1–9. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.02.025.

27. Wilde F, Winter K, Kletsch K, Lorenz K, Schramm A.Mandible reconstruction using patient-specic prebent reconstruction plates: comparison of standard and transfer key methods. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015;10(2):129–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11548- 014- 1065- 1.

28. Farfalli GL, Albergo JI, Ritacco LE, Ayerza MA, Milano FE, Aponte-Tinao LA. What is the expected learning curve in computer-assisted navigation for bone tumor resection? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(3):668–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11999- 016- 4761- z.

29. Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ. Computer-assisted design and rapid prototype modeling in microvascular mandible reconstruction. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(3):597–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/

lary.23717.

30. Hsu SS-P, Gateno J, Bell RB, Hirsch DL, Markiewicz MR, Teichgraeber JF, etal. Accuracy of a computeraided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(1):128–42. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.03.027.

31. Ritschl LM, Mücke T, Hart D, Unterhuber T, Kehl V, Wolff K-D, Fichter AM.Retrospective analysis of complications in 190 mandibular resections and simultaneous reconstructions with free bula ap, iliac crest ap or reconstruction plate: a comparative single Centre study. Clin Oral Invest. 2021;25(5):2905–14.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784- 020- 03607- 8.

32. Roser SM, Ramachandra S, Blair H, Grist W, Carlson GW, Christensen AM, et al. The accuracy of virtual surgical planning in free bula mandibular reconstruction: comparison of planned and nal results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(11):2824–32. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.06.177.

33. Stirling Craig E, Yuhasz M, Shah A, Blumberg J, Salomon J, Lowlicht R, etal. Simulated surgery and cutting guides enhance spatial positioning in free bular mandibular reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2015;35(1):29–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/

micr.22229.

34. Weitz J, Bauer F, Hapfelmeier A, Rohleder NH, Wolff K-D, Kesting MR. Accuracy of mandibular reconstruction by three-dimensional guided vascularised bular free ap after segmental mandibulectomy. Br J

318

https://t.me/medicina_free

M. Rana and H. Möllmann

Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54(5):506–10. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.01.029.

35. Zeller AN, Neuhaus MT, Weissbach LVM, Rana M, Dhawan A, Eckstein FM, et al. Patient-specic mandibular reconstruction plates increase accuracy and long-term stability in immediate alloplastic reconstruction of segmental mandibular defects. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(4):609–15. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s12663- 019- 01323- 9.

36. Sieira Gil R, Roig AM, Obispo CA, Morla A, Pagès CM, Perez JL. Surgical planning and microvascular reconstruction of the mandible with a bular ap using computer-aided design, rapid prototype modelling, and precontoured titanium reconstruction plates: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

bjoms.2014.09.015.

37. Tarsitano A, Ciocca L, Scotti R, Marchetti C.Morphological results of customized microvascular mandibular reconstruction: a comparative study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(6):697–702. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.03.007.

38. Avraham T, Franco P, Brecht LE, Ceradini DJ, Saadeh PB, Hirsch DL, Levine JP. Functional outcomes of virtually planned free bula ap reconstruction of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):628e–34e. https://doi.org/10.1097/

PRS.0000000000000513.

39. Zhou L, Shang H, He L, Bo B, Liu G, Liu Y, Zhao J.Accurate reconstruction of discontinuous mandible using a reverse engineering/computer-aided design/ rapid prototyping technique: a preliminary clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(9):2115–21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.033.

40. Chaine A, Pitak-Arnnop P, Hivelin M, Dhanuthai K, Bertrand J-C, Bertolus C.Postoperative complications of bular free aps in mandibular reconstruction: an analysis of 25 consecutive cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(4):488–95.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.05.043.

41. Vignesh U, Mehrotra D, Howlader D, Singh PK, Gupta S. Patient specic three-dimensional implant for reconstruction of complex mandibular defect. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(4):e308–11. https://doi.

org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005228.

42. Wilkman T, Husso A, Lassus P. Clinical comparison of scapular, bular, and iliac crest osseal free aps in maxillofacial reconstructions. Scand J Surg. 2019;108(1):76–82. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1457496918772365.

43. Patel A, Harrison P, Cheng A, Bray B, Bell RB.Fibular reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with immediate implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation: jaw in a day. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019;31(3):369–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

coms.2019.03.002.

44. Harada H, Shimamoto H, Oikawa Y, Kuroshima T, Tomioka H, Hirai H, et al. Mandibular reconstruction with scapular systems: a single-center case series involving 208 aps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(3):625–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/

PRS.0000000000008301.

45. Dowthwaite SA, Theurer J, Belzile M, Fung K, Franklin J, Nichols A, Yoo J. Comparison of bular and scapular osseous free aps for oromandibular reconstruction: a patient-centered approach to ap selection. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(3):285–92. https://doi.org/10.1001/

jamaoto.2013.1802.

46. Shnayder Y, Lin D, Desai SC, Nussenbaum B, Sand JP, Wax MK.Reconstruction of the lateral mandibular defect: a review and treatment algorithm. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(5):367–73. https://doi.

org/10.1001/jamafacial.2015.0825.

47. Osborn TM, Helal D, Mehra P.Iliac crest bone grafting for mandibular reconstruction: 10-year experience outcomes. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2018;8(1):25–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.12.001.

Part XII

https://t.me/medicina_free

Planning of Craniofacial Malformation

Surgery: Surgical Planning Principles

<<< < Предыдущая 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3031 / 3531 32 33 34 35 > Следующая >>>

Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана

#
31.08.202638 Мб0Книга_4488_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202638 Мб0Книга_4489_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202636 Мб0Книга_4492_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202636 Мб0Книга_4493_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202636 Мб0Книга_4495_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202636 Мб0Книга_4496_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202635 Мб0Книга_4501_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202635 Мб0Книга_4504_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202634 Мб0Книга_4505_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202634 Мб0Книга_4506_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
31.08.202634 Мб0Книга_4507_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf