2019
DOI: 10.1097/scs.0000000000005020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Miniplates Versus Reconstruction Plates in Vascularized Osteocutaneous Flap Reconstruction of the Mandible

Abstract: Purpose: The main aim of this article is to compare the complication rate associated with the use of miniplates versus reconstruction plates in vascularized osteocutaneous flap reconstruction of the mandible. Patients and Methods: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov up to September 2017 to identify studies that compared the complication rate of minipl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a systemic review of 544 patients by Shang-Ping Liu [73], it found that when miniplates were used with fibular flaps there were 10.3% (56/544) complications, of which 4.8% (26/544) were loosening of the screws, 2.6% (14/544) fracture of the plate, 1.5% (8/544) exposure of the plate, and 6.4% (35/544) infection. There are also literatures that believe that there is no difference between miniplate and traditional plate in the incidence of complications [74], and also there is no difference between mini plate and biodegradable plate [70], so is the conclusion by meta-analysis [75]. Radiotherapy and diabetes increased the incidence rate of plate-related complication [69].…”
Section: Mandibular Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a systemic review of 544 patients by Shang-Ping Liu [73], it found that when miniplates were used with fibular flaps there were 10.3% (56/544) complications, of which 4.8% (26/544) were loosening of the screws, 2.6% (14/544) fracture of the plate, 1.5% (8/544) exposure of the plate, and 6.4% (35/544) infection. There are also literatures that believe that there is no difference between miniplate and traditional plate in the incidence of complications [74], and also there is no difference between mini plate and biodegradable plate [70], so is the conclusion by meta-analysis [75]. Radiotherapy and diabetes increased the incidence rate of plate-related complication [69].…”
Section: Mandibular Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of conventional miniplates for free flap fixation has been described several times ( 16 , 17 ). However, complications also occur with conventional miniplates ( 18 ), and plate fractures are registered more frequently ( 8 ). This is due to pre-determined breaking points during manual bending with forceps and potential poor anatomical reduction of the (joint-carrying) segments, setting the fixation under unfavorable pre-stress ( 19 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a retrospective analysis of 143 mandibular reconstruction patients, no relationship was observed between the use of reconstruction plates or miniplates and complication rate [20]. Similarly, a metaanalysis including 511 patients showed no differences in the use of these two systems of xation; however, clinical records showed that reconstruction plates were associated with both less complications and local exposure in the postoperative period than miniplates [21]. Parise et al retrospectively evaluated 43 patients submitted to mandibular reconstruction with free bular ap [22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%