The double-barrel fibula flap and vascularized iliac crest flap are both commonly used for mandibular reconstruction. The present study compared the usage and reconstruction outcomes of transplanted bone with these 2 methods.
The data from 30 patients who had undergone mandibular osteotomy and reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Of the 30 patients, 20 had received a vascularized iliac crest flap (group A) and 10 had received a double-barrel fibula flap (group B). The following variables were compared between the 2 groups: volume of bone flap (VBF), volume of effective bone flap (VEBF; ie, overlap between the volume of the ideal mandible [VIM] and the VBF), usage of the bone flap (VEBF divided by the VBF), mandibular reconstruction rate (VEBF divided by the VIM), volume of needless bone flap (VNBF; ie, VBF minus VEBF; the VNBF included the volume of needless buccal bone flap [VNBBF] and the volume of needless lingual bone flap [VNLBF]), percentage of alveolar crest restoration (PACR; ie, effective bone flap width divided by ideal alveolar crest width), and height of the bone flap (HBF). The independent-samples t test and the χ test were used to compare the variables between the 2 groups. Statistical significance was at P ≤ .05.
Usage of the bone flap and the length of the mandibular defect were significantly greater in group B than in group A (P = .039 and P < .001, respectively). The VBF, VNBF, and VNLBF were significantly greater in group A than in group B (P < .001 for both). The mandibular reconstruction rate, VNBBF, PACR, HBF, and tooth implantation rate were comparable between the 2 groups.
The double-barrel fibula flap can effectively restore the height of the alveolar crest, reconstruct longer mandibular defects, and provide a better buccal and lingual appearance compared with the vascularized iliac crest flap. Although the vascularized iliac crest flap can provide sufficient bone quantity, it must be contoured to the mandible.

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.