Subperiosteal Mandibular Resection With Internal Bar Fixation

Byars, Louis T.

doi:10.1097/00006534-194609000-00013

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first published case of immediate mandibular reconstruction with an implantable device was reported by Byars in 1946. 4 He described the use of a stainless steel bar for internal fixation of the mandible after "subperiosteal" tumor resection. In the mid-1970s, drawing from the successful experience of using internal fixation plates for long bone fractures, the stainless steel plate for mandibular reconstruction was introduced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the 1940s, implantable devices have been used in mandibular reconstruction. 4 With increasing clinical experience, many improvements have been made in both implant materials and plate system designs. Titanium has proven to be a reliable, strong, and biocompatible metal for this use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reconstructive techniques have been continuously developing over the years. Since the 1940s, implantable devices have been used in mandibular reconstruction 4 . With increasing clinical experience, many improvements have been made in both implant materials and plate system designs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of the 2.0‐mm Locking Reconstruction Plate in Primary Oromandibular Reconstruction after Composite Resection

Militsakh

Wallace

Kriet

et al. 2004

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with 2.0-mm locking reconstruction plate (LRP) system for patients requiring oromandibular reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review of 43 consecutive patients who underwent mandibular composite resection with immediate reconstruction. SETTING: Tertiary care center. RESULTS: Forty-three patients underwent oromandibular reconstruction with the 2.0-mm mandibular LRP system and free flaps containing vascularized bone. Mean follow-up was 11 months. There were no intraoperative difficulties utilizing this system. Two (5%) patients had partial fasciocutaneous flap loss resulting in plate exposure. There were no instances of plate fracture or complications requiring plate removal to date. CONCLUSION: 2.0-mm LRP mandibular system is reliable even in the setting of previous or adjuvant radiation therapy. Its technical ease of application, contouring malleability, and very low profile have proven to be advantageous in oromandibular reconstruction. SIGNIFICANCE: No previous descriptions of use of the 2.0-mm LRP in combination with osteocutaneous free flaps for mandibular reconstruction are found in the literature. EBM rating: C.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of the 2.0‐mm Locking Reconstruction Plate in Primary Oromandibular Reconstruction after Composite Resection

Militsakh

Wallace

Kriet

et al. 2004

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reconstruction of a mandibular defect, therefore, must aim to a total recovery of both the aesthetic and function. Several techniques have been described for the reconstruction of mandibular defects along the past decades; traditionally, the mandibular continuity was provided by alloplastic biocompatible plates and meshes (vitallium, titanium) that are properly shaped [2][3][4][5][6] ; unfortunately, outcomes of alloplastic reconstructions were often poor in terms of both the aesthetic and functional recovery. [7][8][9] Starting from the 1960 s, the refinement of reconstruction techniques led to use of different autologous bone grafts (harvested from calvaria, ribs, anterior and posterior iliac crest) for repairing bone defects in association, when indicated, with locoregional pedicled soft tissue flaps harvested from the pectoralis major muscle, the sternomastoid muscle, and the latissimus dorsi muscle [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] ; along with the use of soft tissue pedicled flap combined with bone grafts, several compound pedicled osteomuscular flaps 18 for complex bone-soft tissue reconstruction were also described: sternocleidomastoid þ clavicle flap, 19 trapezius flap þ scapula, 20 pectoralis major flap þ rib 21 or sternum, 22 and latissimus dorsi þ scapula flap.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Reconstruction With Different Techniques

Torroni¹,

Marianetti²,

Romandini

et al. 2015

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traumas, malformative or dysplastic pathologies, atrophy, osteoradionecrosis, and benign or malignant neoplasm can cause bone deficits in the mandible. Consequent mandibular defects can determine aesthetic and functional problems; therefore, being able to perform a good reconstruction is of critical importance.Several techniques have been proposed for mandibular reconstruction over the years. In this article, we present and discuss the evolution during the time of the methods of mandible reconstruction as well as pros and cons of each procedure on the basis of experience of 10 years in the maxillofacial department of the Catholic University of Sacred Heart of Rome.Free flaps represent the gold standard method of reconstruction of large mandibular defects: the fibula bone flap represents the best choice for large defects involving the arch and the mandibular ramus, whereas the deep circumflex iliac artery represents a valid alternative for mandibular defects involving the posterior region.In cases where free flap reconstructions are contraindicated, the use of regional pedicle flap combined with autologous bone grafts still represents a valid choice. Patients who are not deemed suitable for long and demanding surgery can still be treated using alloplastic materials in association with regional pedicle flap or, when adjuvant radiation therapy is needed, by simple locoregional pedicle flap. Finally, in selected cases, the bone transporting technique should be considered as a valid alternative to the more "traditional" reconstructive methods because of the extraordinary potential and its favorable cost-benefit ratio.

show abstract

“…Since then, mandibular replacements have utilized a wide variety of foreign substitutes, including ivory, rubber, wire mesh, celluloid, vitallium, steel, acrylic, polyethylene, and silicone. [44][45][46][47][48][49] With these implants, the mandible can be restored without the need to spare time for harvesting and reshaping autogenous bone. However, subsequent infection and extrusion were not uncommon even when these implants were used in combination with adjacent musculocutaneous and axial cutaneous flaps, resulting in these prostheses falling from favor.…”

Section: Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of osseous and osteocutaneous flaps for mandibular reconstruction

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microvascular free flap transfer currently represents one of the most popular methods for mandibular reconstruction. With the various free flap options now available, there is a general consensus that no single kind of osseous or osteocutaneous flap can resolve the entire spectrum of mandibular defects. A suitable flap, therefore, should be selected according to the specific type of bone and soft tissue defect. We have developed an algorithm for mandibular reconstruction, in which the bony defect is termed as either "lateral" or "anterior" and the soft-tissue defect is classified as "none," "skin or mucosal," or "through-and-through." For proper flap selection, the bony defect condition should be considered first, followed by the soft-tissue defect condition. When the bony defect is "lateral" and the soft tissue is not defective, the ilium is the best choice. When the bony defect is "lateral" and a small "skin or mucosal" soft-tissue defect is present, the fibula represents the optimal choice. When the bony defect is "lateral" and an extensive "skin or mucosal" or "through-and-through" soft-tissue defect exists, the scapula should be selected. When the bony defect is "anterior," the fibula should always be selected. However, when an "anterior" bone defect also displays an "extensive" or "through-and-through" soft-tissue defect, the fibula should be used with other soft-tissue flaps. Flaps such as a forearm flap, anterior thigh flap, or rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap are suitable, depending on the size of the soft-tissue defect.

show abstract

Subperiosteal Mandibular Resection With Internal Bar Fixation

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Use of the 2.0‐mm Locking Reconstruction Plate in Primary Oromandibular Reconstruction after Composite Resection

Use of the 2.0‐mm Locking Reconstruction Plate in Primary Oromandibular Reconstruction after Composite Resection

Mandibular Reconstruction With Different Techniques

Choice of osseous and osteocutaneous flaps for mandibular reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About