A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Double-Barrel Versus Single-Barrel Fibula Flaps for Mandibular Reconstruction: Safety and Outcomes. | LitMetric

Objectives/hypothesis: Fibula flaps are routinely used for osseous reconstruction of head and neck defects. However, single-barrel fibula flaps may result in a height discrepancy between native mandible and grafted bone, limiting outcomes from both an aesthetic and dental standpoint. The double-barrel fibula flap aims to resolve this. We present our institution's outcomes comparing both flap designs.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing free fibula flap mandibular reconstruction at our institution between October 2008 and October 2020. Patients were grouped based on whether they underwent single-barrel or double-barrel reconstruction. Postoperative outcomes data were collected and compared between groups. Differences in categorical and continuous variables were assessed using a Chi-square test or Student's t-test, respectively.

Results: Out of 168 patients, 126 underwent single-barrel and 42 underwent double-barrel reconstruction. There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between approaches, including total complications (P = .37), flap-related complications (P = .62), takeback to the operating room (P = .75), flap salvage (P = .66), flap failure (P = .45), and mortality (P = .19). In addition, there was no significant difference in operative time (P = .86) or duration of hospital stay (P = .17). After adjusting for confounders, primary dental implantation was significantly higher in the double-barrel group (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-7.6; P = .019).

Conclusion: Double-barrel fibula flap mandibular reconstruction can be performed safely without increased postoperative morbidity or duration of hospital stay relative to single-barrel reconstruction. Moreover, the double-barrel approach is associated with higher odds of primary dental implantation and may warrant further consideration as part of an expanded toolkit for achieving early dental rehabilitation.

Level Of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:1576-1581, 2022.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.29927DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fibula flaps
12
mandibular reconstruction
12
fibula flap
12
single-barrel fibula
8
double-barrel fibula
8
flap mandibular
8
underwent single-barrel
8
double-barrel reconstruction
8
postoperative morbidity
8
duration hospital
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!