Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction.

Abstract

Simple SummaryHead and neck bone reconstruction with revascularized free periosteal flaps and scaffold is an overlooked option in the literature. Aim of the present paper was to systematically analyse the results of maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with this technique. We found a total of 7 studies with 55 patients fitting with our inclusion criteria. The overall rate of complications was 43.7%. The success rate intended as scaffold integration resulted to be 74.5%. Our paper therefore highlighted that maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with revascularized free periosteal flaps and scaffold is a possible alternative in patient unable to bone free flap complex reconstruction, with a success rate higher to that of other secondary options.Introduction: Head and neck bone reconstruction is a challenging surgical scenario. Although several strategies have been described in the literature, bone free flaps (BFFs) have become the preferred technique for large defects. Revascularized free periosteal flaps (FPFs) with support scaffold represents a possible alternative in compromised patient, BFF failure, or relapsing cancers as salvage treatment. However, only few clinical applications in head and neck are reported in literature. Purpose of the study was to systematically analyse the results of functional and oncologic maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with FPF with scaffold. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of the dedicated literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines searching on Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Researchgate and Google Scholar databases using relevant keywords, phrases and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. An excursus on the most valuable FPF’ harvesting sites was also carried out. Results: A total of 7 studies with 55 patients were included. Overall, the majority of the patients (n = 54, 98.1%) underwent an FPF reconstruction of the mandibular site. The most used technique was the radial forearm FPF with autologous frozen bone as scaffold (n = 40, 72.7%). The overall rate of complications was 43.7%. The success rate intended as scaffold integration resulted to be 74.5%. Conclusions: Maxillary and mandibular reconstruction with FPF and scaffold is a possible alternative in patient unfit for complex BFF reconstruction and it should be considered as a valid alternative in the sequential salvage surgery for locally advanced cancer. Moreover, it opens future scenarios in head and neck reconstructive surgery, as a promising tool that can be modelled to tailor complex 3D defects, with less morbidities to the donor site.