Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
entrez:
30
4
2019
pubmed:
30
4
2019
medline:
23
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Complete reoperation is defined as undergoing reoperative/repeated jaw osteotomies, in a patient who previously underwent orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe jaw positions at three time-points (before primary and before and after reoperative surgery), (2) investigate factors necessitating reoperation, and (3) outline the technical challenges. Repeated orthognathic surgery cases >1-year out were included. Demographic, radiologic, and perioperative data were compiled. Repeated osteotomies (Le-Fort and/or bilateral split sagittal osteotomy, with or without genioplasty), were compared to their respective primary procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using t tests and z-scores. Fifteen patients were included (28.1 years; 71 percent female). Reoperative/repeated surgery was most often needed to address iatrogenic bony malposition and asymmetry. Relapse was a less common indication. Time between reoperative and primary surgery was 14 months. Sagittal discrepancies (p = 0.029) were the most frequent reason for primary orthognathic surgery (e.g., mandibular hypoplasia (p = 0.023). Reoperative/repeated orthognathic was performed for asymmetry (p = 0.014). Repeated procedures used more 3-dimensional planning (p < 0.001), required all three osteotomies (p = 0.034), had longer operative times (p = 0.078), and all required hardware removal (p < 0.001). Anatomical outcomes were good with 100% patient satisfaction at long-term follow-up. Reoperative/repeated orthognathic surgery is challenging and underreported in the literature. Whereas primary orthognathic typically addressed sagittal discrepancies, reoperative/repeated osteotomies were needed to correct iatrogenic bone malposition and asymmetries. Challenges include: re-planning, scar burden, need to remove integrated hardware, and repeated osteotomy/fixation. Despite these difficulties, outcomes and patient acceptance were good. Therapeutic, IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Complete reoperation is defined as undergoing reoperative/repeated jaw osteotomies, in a patient who previously underwent orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe jaw positions at three time-points (before primary and before and after reoperative surgery), (2) investigate factors necessitating reoperation, and (3) outline the technical challenges.
METHODS
Repeated orthognathic surgery cases >1-year out were included. Demographic, radiologic, and perioperative data were compiled. Repeated osteotomies (Le-Fort and/or bilateral split sagittal osteotomy, with or without genioplasty), were compared to their respective primary procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using t tests and z-scores.
RESULTS
Fifteen patients were included (28.1 years; 71 percent female). Reoperative/repeated surgery was most often needed to address iatrogenic bony malposition and asymmetry. Relapse was a less common indication. Time between reoperative and primary surgery was 14 months. Sagittal discrepancies (p = 0.029) were the most frequent reason for primary orthognathic surgery (e.g., mandibular hypoplasia (p = 0.023). Reoperative/repeated orthognathic was performed for asymmetry (p = 0.014). Repeated procedures used more 3-dimensional planning (p < 0.001), required all three osteotomies (p = 0.034), had longer operative times (p = 0.078), and all required hardware removal (p < 0.001). Anatomical outcomes were good with 100% patient satisfaction at long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Reoperative/repeated orthognathic surgery is challenging and underreported in the literature. Whereas primary orthognathic typically addressed sagittal discrepancies, reoperative/repeated osteotomies were needed to correct iatrogenic bone malposition and asymmetries. Challenges include: re-planning, scar burden, need to remove integrated hardware, and repeated osteotomy/fixation. Despite these difficulties, outcomes and patient acceptance were good.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31033831
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005532
pii: 00006534-201905000-00037
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1053e-1059eRéférences
Williams BJ, Isom A, Laureano Filho JR, O’Ryan FS. Nasal airway function after maxillary surgery: A prospective cohort study using the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:343–350.
Gokce SM, Gorgulu S, Gokce HS, Bengi AO, Karacayli U, Ors F. Evaluation of pharyngeal airway space changes after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with a 3-dimensional simulation and modeling program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:477–492.
Wolford LM, Perez D, Stevao E, Perez E. Airway space changes after nasopharyngeal adenoidectomy in conjunction with Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:665–671.
Maganzini AL, Alhussain IY. Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with combined orthognathic-orthodontic approach assessed by nocturnal polysomnography. N Y State Dent J. 2008;74:36–40.
Schneider D, Kämmerer PW, Schön G, Bschorer R. A three-dimensional comparison of the pharyngeal airway after mandibular distraction osteogenesis and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:1632–1637.
O’Gara M, Wilson K. The effects of maxillofacial surgery on speech and velopharyngeal function. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34:395–402.
Almutairi FL, Hodges SJ, Hunt NP. Occlusal outcomes in combined orthodontic and orthognathic treatment. J Orthod. 2017;44:28–33.
Park HM, Yang IH, Choi JY, Lee JH, Kim MJ, Baek SH. Postsurgical relapse in class III patients treated with two-jaw surgery: Conventional three-stage method versus surgery-first approach. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:2357–2363.
Proffit WR, Turvey TA, Phillips C. The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: An update and extension. Head Face Med. 2007;3:21.
Serafin B, Perciaccante VJ, Cunningham LL. Stability of orthognathic surgery and distraction osteogenesis: Options and alternatives. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007;19:311–320, v.
Yamaguchi K, Lonic D, Lo LJ. Complications following orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip/palate: A systematic review. J Formos Med Assoc. 2016;115:269–277.
Panula K, Finne K, Oikarinen K. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: A review of 655 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59:1128–1136; discussion 1137.
Van Sickels JE, Richardson DA. Stability of orthognathic surgery: A review of rigid fixation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;34:279–285.
Huang YL, Pogrel MA, Kaban LB. Diagnosis and management of condylar resorption. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55:114–119; discussion 119120.
Kobayashi T, Izumi N, Kojima T, Sakagami N, Saito I, Saito C. Progressive condylar resorption after mandibular advancement. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50:176–180.
Yang RS, Salama AR, Caccamese JF. Reoperative midface trauma. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23:31–45, v.
Keller EE, Van Roekel NB, Desjardins RP, Tolman DE. Prosthetic-surgical reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla with iliac bone grafting and tissue-integrated prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:155–165.
Raffaini M, Pisani C, Conti M. Orthognathic surgery “again” to correct aesthetic failure of primary surgery: Report on outcomes and patient satisfaction in 70 consecutive cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46:1069–1078.