A comparison of vascularized and nonvascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects

Pogrel, M. Anthony; Podlesh, Scott W.; Anthony, James P.; Alexander, John R.

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(97)90165-8

Cited by 381 publications

(296 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

258

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Non vascular bone grafts could be used judiciously for reconstruction of selective mandibular defects with not much of soft tissue loss provided the defect is \9 cm [11], stable fixation to the native mandible and a 2-layer watertight closure both intraorally and extraorally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction

Devireddy

Murugan

Kumar

et al. 2014

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction

Devireddy

Murugan

Kumar

et al. 2014

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Interestingly, one study identified a difference only for grafts greater than 6 cm, but not at individual graft categories such as 10 to 14 cm [20]. The other study found that as length increased for NVBGs, the rate of failure increased, but did not present the failure rate as VBG length increased [35]. These two examples suggest that creating length categories may (1) result in misleading interpretations of the data, or (2) result in incomplete presentation of data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Four studies of fibular and iliac crest grafts to the mandible [20,35,41,50] and two studies of grafts from the iliac crest and radius to the scaphoid [7,37] that directly compared VBGs and NVBGs were identified and excluded from the search. These studies are inconclusive with respect to whether VBGs outperform NVBGs at increasing length, and are no basis to make clinical recommendations regarding long-bone and large-joint defects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies are inconclusive with respect to whether VBGs outperform NVBGs at increasing length, and are no basis to make clinical recommendations regarding long-bone and large-joint defects. However, two of the mandibular studies [20,35] are unique in that they compare VBGs and NVBGs at different length categories; a feature needed in future long-bone and large-joint studies. In these studies, the grafts are divided into categories (\6 cm, 6-10 cm, 10-14 cm,[14 cm [20] and\6 cm, 6-9 cm, 9-12 cm,[12 cm [35]) and VBGs and NVBGs are compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, two of the mandibular studies [20,35] are unique in that they compare VBGs and NVBGs at different length categories; a feature needed in future long-bone and large-joint studies. In these studies, the grafts are divided into categories (\6 cm, 6-10 cm, 10-14 cm,[14 cm [20] and\6 cm, 6-9 cm, 9-12 cm,[12 cm [35]) and VBGs and NVBGs are compared. Interestingly, one study identified a difference only for grafts greater than 6 cm, but not at individual graft categories such as 10 to 14 cm [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vascularized versus Nonvascularized Bone Grafts: What Is the Evidence?

Allsopp

Hunter-Smith

Rozen

2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a general perception in practice that a vascular supply should be used when large pieces of bone graft are used, particularly those greater than 6 cm in length for long-bone and large-joint reconstructions. However, the scientific source of this recommendation is not clear. Questions/purposes We wished to perform a systematic review to (1) investigate the origin of evidence for this 6-cm rule, and (2) to identify whether there is strong evidence to support the importance of vascularization for longer grafts and/or the lack of vascularization for shorter grafts. Methods Two systematic reviews were performed using SCOPUS and Medline, one for each research question. For

show abstract

Midfacial Reconstruction Using Calvarial Split Bone Grafts

Smolka¹,

Eggensperger²,

Kollar³

et al. 2005

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the success rate of free calvarial grafts for midfacial reconstruction, the relevance of soft tissue coverage, and the influence of radiotherapy. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: University medical center. Patients: Fifty-six patients (27 tumor cases, 24 trauma cases, and 5 others) underwent bony midface reconstruction using calvarial grafts in the past 11 years. Half of the patients with tumor were additionally treated with radiation. Interventions: A total of 95 bone transplants were used for reconstruction of the zygoma, orbit, and nasal bone. Graft survival and complications were evaluated. Grafts with total and partial soft tissue coverage were compared. The influence of radiotherapy in the tumor patient group was determined. Results: Graft survival was 95.8%. One nasal dorsum graft was totally resorbed. Infection occurred in 9 cases, leading to only 1 total and 2 partial graft losses. The incidence of dysfunction of the eye due to globe malposition after reconstruction of the orbital walls was low. A correlation between radiation and transplant loss as well as between soft tissue coverage and graft survival could not be found. Conclusions: For midfacial reconstruction, it is not necessary to fully cover calvarial bone grafts by the surrounding soft tissue. Even in patients who will undergo postoperative irradiation, calvarial bone grafts are a reliable alternative in selected cases.

show abstract

A comparison of vascularized and nonvascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects

Cited by 381 publications

References 28 publications

Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction

Evaluation of Non-vascular Fibula Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction

Vascularized versus Nonvascularized Bone Grafts: What Is the Evidence?

Midfacial Reconstruction Using Calvarial Split Bone Grafts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About