Advertisement

Midface, Post-maxillectomy Reconstruction

  • Vijay V. Haribhakti
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter, authored by Prof. Matthew Hanasono, details a clear algorithmic approach to the management of defects in this anatomically complex region. As these defects are comparatively uncommon, majority of reconstructive surgeons lack requisite experience, rendering this chapter extremely important.

The most fundamental tenets of midface and post-maxillectomy reconstruction are as follows:
  • Achieving midfacial projection in order to preserve facial appearance

  • Oronasal separation

  • Patency of nasal passages permitting nasal respiration

  • Preserving mastication, speech, and swallowing functions

  • Providing support to the globe wherever orbital floor needs resection

In all patients, it is essential to determine the most pragmatic option that achieves the above objectives as completely as possible.

Defects of the palate alone (preserving the soft palate) are most readily obturated, provided there is adequate dentition available. If fashioning an obturator is not possible, a local palatal rotation flap suffices with limited, lateralized defects, while larger defects would need a fasciocutaneous free flap such as the FRAFF, or even a pedicled temporalis muscle flap.

With defects encompassing the alveolar process, the reconstructive alternatives depend upon the extent of alveolar resection.

Defects posterior to the canine tooth, with adequate dentition can be effectively obturated if a 3-point support is available through both canines and contralateral molar teeth.

If the patient desires reconstruction or if a stable prosthesis cannot be planned, reconstruction can be readily accomplished with soft tissue flaps, the ALT being the most popular choice. If dental rehabilitation is desired, the osteocutaneous free fibula would represent the most favored option currently.

With palatomaxillary defects extending to the midline and beyond, adequate projection of the midface can only be attained with bony reconstruction. The osteocutaneous fibula is the current first choice for all such defects.

All the above situations are covered by suitable case studies.

With defects involving the orbital floor, globe support has to be assured and is achieved either with a bone-containing flap or a titanium mesh.

A detailed algorithmic approach is suggested for defects of varying sizes and complexity.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG (2010) Microvascular reconstruction of oncologic defects of the midface. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):1947–1959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frederick JW, Sweeny L, Carroll WR, Peters GE, Rosenthal EL (2013) Outcomes in head and neck reconstruction by surgical site and donor site. Laryngoscope 123(7):1612–1617PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chigurupati R, Aloor N, Salas R, Schmidt BL (2013) Quality of life after maxillectomy and prosthetic obturator rehabilitation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(8):1471–1478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cordeiro PG, Santamaria E (2000) Classification system and algorithm for reconstruction of maxillectomy and midfacial defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2331–2346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cordeiro PG, Chen CM (2012) A 15-year review of midface reconstruction after total and subtotal maxillectomy: Part II. Technical modifications to maximize aesthetic and functional outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(1):139–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown JS, Shaw RJ (2010) Reconstruction of the maxilla and midface: introducing a new classification. Lancet Oncol 11(10):1001–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanasono MM, Lee JC, Yang JS, Skoracki RJ, Reece GP, Esmaeli B (2009) An algorithmic approach to reconstructive surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation after orbital exenteration. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(1):98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown JS, Rogers SN, McNally DN, Boyle M (2000) A modified classification for the maxillectomy defect. Head Neck 22(1):17–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costa H, Zenha H, Sequeira H, Coelho G, Gomes N, Pinto C, Martins J, Santos D, Andresen C (2015) Microsurgical reconstruction of the maxilla: algorithm and concepts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(5):e89–e104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santamaria E, Cordeiro PG (2006) Reconstruction of maxillectomy and midfacial defects with free tissue transfer. J Surg Oncol 94(6):522–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rieger JM, Tang JA, Wolfaardt J, Harris J, Seikaly H (2011) Comparison of speech and aesthetic outcomes in patients with maxillary reconstruction versus maxillary obturators after maxillectomy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 40(1):40–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moreno MA, Skoracki RJ, Hanna EY, Hanasono MM (2010) Microvascular free flap reconstruction versus palatal obturation for maxillectomy defects. Head Neck 32(7):860–868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ (2010) The omega-shaped fibula osteocutaneous free flap for reconstruction of extensive midfacial defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(4):160e–162ePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang EI, Clemens MW, Garvey PB, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM (2012) Cephalometric analysis for microvascular head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 34(11):1607–1614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levine JP, Bae JS, Soares M, Brecht LE, Saadeh PB, Ceradini DJ, Hirsch DL (2013) Jaw in a day: total maxillofacial reconstruction using digital technology. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(6):1386–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seruya M, Fisher M, Rodriguez ED (2013) Computer-assisted versus conventional free fibula flap technique for craniofacial reconstruction: an outcomes comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(5):1219–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanasono MM, Jacob RF, Bidaut L, Robb GL, Skoracki RJ (2010) Midfacial reconstruction using virtual planning, rapid prototype modeling, and stereotactic navigation. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2002–2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirby EJ, Turner JB, Davenport DL, Vasconez HC (2011) Orbital floor fractures: outcomes of reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 66:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodriguez ED, Martin M, Bluebond-Langner R, Khalifeh M, Sing N, Manson PN (2007) Microsurgical reconstruction of posttraumatic high-energy maxillary defects: establishing the effectiveness of early reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:103S–117SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sapthavee A, Munaretto N, Toriumi DM (2015) Skin grafts vs local flaps for reconstruction of nasal defects: a retrospective cohort study. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 17(4):270–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burget GC, Menick FJ (1985) The subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 76(2):239–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Momoh AO, Kelley BP, Diaz-Garcia RJ, Kulkarni AR, Kozlow JH, Bullocks JM, Lee BT (2013) An alternative mucosal flap for nasal lining: the superior labial artery mucosal flap-an anatomic study. J Craniofac Surg 24(2):626–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burget GC, Walton RL (2007) Optimal use of microvascular free flaps, cartilage grafts, and a paramedian forehead flap for aesthetic reconstruction of the nose and adjacent facial units. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(5):1171–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walton RL, Burget GC, Beahm EK (2005) Microsurgical reconstruction of the nasal lining. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(7):1813–1829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang EI, Zhang H, Liu J, Yu P, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM (2016) Analysis of risk factors for flap loss and salvage in free flap head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 38(Suppl 1):E771–E775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijay V. Haribhakti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OncologySir HN Reliance Foundation HospitalMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations