口腔医学 ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 355-359.doi: 10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2025.05.006

• 基础与临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

经口入路与经下颌下入路行下颌骨腓骨重建的回顾性分析

徐帆1,2,3, 苗冬青4, 王羽立1,2,3, 卞一峰1,2,3, 肖娜1,2,3, 杜一飞1,2,3(), 丁旭1,2,3()   

  1. 1 南京医科大学附属口腔医院口腔颌面外科,江苏南京(210029)
    2 口腔疾病研究与防治国家级重点实验室培育建设点,江苏南京(210029)
    3 江苏省口腔转化医学工程研究中心,江苏南京(210029)
    4 连云港市东海县人民医院口腔科,江苏连云港(222300)
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-27 出版日期:2025-05-28 发布日期:2025-05-21
  • 通讯作者: 杜一飞 E-mail:dyf@njmu.edu.cn; 丁 旭 E-mail:dingxunj@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    江苏省卫生厅干部保健课题(BJ18035);南京市卫生科技发展专项基金项目计划(YKK23295)

A retrospective analysis comparing mandibular fibula reconstruction by transoral versus submandibular approach

XU Fan1,2,3, MIAO Dongqing4, WANG Yuli1,2,3, BIAN Yifeng1,2,3, XIAO Na1,2,3, DU Yifei1,2,3(), DING Xu1,2,3()   

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
  • Received:2024-10-27 Online:2025-05-28 Published:2025-05-21

摘要:

目的 比较经口入路和经下颌下入路应用游离腓骨瓣(free fibular flaps,FFFs)进行下颌骨节段切除和重建的临床和功能差异。方法 回顾性分析南京医科大学附属口腔医院口腔颌面外科2015年1月至2023年3月行下颌骨节段性切除及游离腓骨瓣重建的患者,分为经口入路和经下颌下入路两组。记录患者的基本信息,包括年龄、性别、随访时间、病理诊断、体重指数、美国麻醉医师学会分级、James Brown分类缺损类型及腓骨节段数目。比较两组患者围手术期相关指标,如平均手术时间、平均出血量、平均输血量、平均引流量、平均住院时间及术后出现错𬌗、瘘管、感染、皮瓣坏死、口腔运动受限等并发症。术后6个月以上随访采用华盛顿大学生活质量问卷(UW-QOL)评估外观、吞咽和语言功能。结果 经口入路组术中平均出血量和术后平均引流量较经下颌下入路组明显减少(P=0.013 9,P=0.001 9)。经口入路组外观评分为83.52±12.37,明显高于经下颌下入路组的67.19±13.64(P<0.000 1)。术后并发症、平均住院时间、平均手术时间、平均输血量、开口受限和偏差、吞咽和言语评分等其他变量两组间差异均无统计学意义。结论 与经下颌下入路相比,经口入路行下颌骨FFFs修复重建能够获得更好的美学效果。

关键词: 游离腓骨瓣, 下颌骨重建, 手术入路

Abstract:

Objective To compare the clinical and functional differences between transoral and submandibular approach in mandibular segmental resection and reconstruction with free fibula flaps (FFFs). Methods Patients who underwent mandibular segmental resection and FFFs reconstruction in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2015 to March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. All cases were divided into transoral approach and submandibular approach groups. Clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded including age, gender, follow-up time, pathological diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, James Brown classification of mandibular defect and number of fibular segments. The perioperative indexes, such as average operation time, average bleeding volume, average blood transfusion volume, average drainage volume, average hospitalization time and postoperative complications such as malocclusion, fistula, infection, flap failure, and restriction of mouth opening were compared between the two groups. The University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire was used to investigate the appearance, function of swallow and speech more than 6-month postoperatively. Results The average intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage were significantly lower in the transoral approach group than in the submandibular approach group (P=0.013 9, P=0.001 9). The appearance score was significantly higher in the transoral approach group than in the submandibular approach group(83.52±12.37) vs. (67.19±13.64)(P<0.000 1). The differences between the two groups in other variables were not statistically significant. Conclusion Cases of transoral approach had significantly better aesthetic outcomes compared with those of submandibular approach.

Key words: free fibula flap, mandibular reconstruction, surgical approach

中图分类号: