2. Background
• The midfacial defects reconstructions for
oncologic resections are a surgical
challenge
Mc Carthy C, Cordeiro P et al. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010; 126:1947-59
IPRAS 2013
3. Background
• The maxillar provide the structural
support between skull base and maxillary
arches.
• To separate oral and nasal cavities.
• To participate in swallowing, phonation,
mastication, vision and aesthetic
appearance.
IPRAS 2013
4. Background
• Generally we need to realize the
maxillectomy associated with soft tissue
resection.
• This results in different functional
impairments
• The maxillary reconstruction going from
obturator prosthesis, local flaps to free
flaps. Algorithm and Outcomes: 15-year Review of Midface Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011. In
press
IPRAS 2013
5. Aim
• To present the different
reconstructives alternatives used after
a maxillectomy for oncologic disease
in our hospital.
IPRAS 2013
9. Method
• Retrospective analysis of all patients
that was submitted to a maxillectomy
for oncologic disease between 2008
and 2011 in our center
• Medical record review.
• Clinical control
IPRAS 2013
11. ResultsPatients
characteristics
n=12
Age
(median and
range)
57 years range 25 - 84 years
Gender
female : male
8:4
Smoking 8 75%
Alcoholism 5 41.6%
Consultation
reason
Bulking/pain
Dental derivation
5
7 41.6%
58.4%
TNM
Stage IV
12 100%
Characteristics of the patients with a maxillectomy for oncologic disease
IPRAS 2013
24. Results
• In all patients we achieve a
satisfactory functional outcome
• Complications
• Aspirative pneumonia in two
patients.
• Partial necrosis of latissimus dorsi
flap
• venous thrombosis
IPRAS 2013
25. Discussion
• Is recommended to adjust the
reconstructive choice to
• Maxillectomy realized
• Age
• TNM
• Comorbidities
• Functional outcomes
IPRAS 2013
26. Discussion
• The obturator prosthesis can be
reserve for selected patients with
limited palatal defects.
IPRAS 2013
27. Discussion
• The unilateral or bilateral temporalis
muscle flap is recommended and
presents adequate functional outcome
in patients with advanced disease and
poor prognosis.
IPRAS 2013
28. Discussion
• The microsurgical reconstruction is the
surgical alternative of choice, with the
best funcional and aesthetics outcomes in
patients with type II - III - IV
maxillectomies
IPRAS 2013