Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery.
Wu, Robin T; Wilson, Alexander T; Gary, Cyril S; Steinbacher, Derek M.
Afiliación
  • Wu RT; From the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine.
  • Wilson AT; From the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine.
  • Gary CS; From the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine.
  • Steinbacher DM; From the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 143(5): 1053e-1059e, 2019 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31033831
ABSTRACT

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.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Reoperación / Enfermedades Maxilomandibulares / Osteotomía Le Fort / Mentoplastia Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Plast Reconstr Surg Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Reoperación / Enfermedades Maxilomandibulares / Osteotomía Le Fort / Mentoplastia Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Plast Reconstr Surg Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article