Orthognathic Hardware Complications in the Era of Patient-Specific Implants

• Published in: Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) Vol. 146; no. 5; p. 609e
• Main Authors: Kalmar, Christopher L, Humphries, Laura S, Zimmerman, Carrie E, Vu, Giap H, Swanson, Jordan W, Bartlett, Scott P, Taylor, Jesse A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.11.2020
• Subjects: Adolescent; Bone Plates - adverse effects; Cleft Lip; Comorbidity; Female; Genioplasty - adverse effects; Genioplasty - instrumentation; Humans; Male; Osteotomy, Le Fort - adverse effects; Osteotomy, Le Fort - instrumentation; Osteotomy, Sagittal Split Ramus - adverse effects; Osteotomy, Sagittal Split Ramus - instrumentation; Patient-Specific Modeling; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Postoperative Complications - surgery; Prosthesis Design - adverse effects; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Stomatognathic System Abnormalities - epidemiology; Stomatognathic System Abnormalities - surgery; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1529-4242
• DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007250

Patients undergoing orthognathic skeletal correction present with a variety of comorbidities that may affect surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine how patient risk factors and operative technique contribute to complication rates after orthognathic surgery in the era of patient-specific implants. Retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of pediatric patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and/or genioplasty from 2014 to 2018. Patient risk factors, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were gathered and compared with appropriate statistics. Ninety-four patients met inclusion criteria, with an overall 1-year complication rate of 11.7 percent (11 of 94). Patient-specific mandibular plates are significantly associated with infection (p = 0.009; OR, 8.8), occurrence of any complication (p = 0.003; OR, 8.3), readmission (p < 0.001; OR, 11.1), and reoperation (p < 0.001; OR, 11.4). In patients with syndromes or history of cleft lip/palate, patient-specific mandibular plates are associated with infection (p = 0.006; OR, 10.3), readmission (p < 0.001; OR, 21.6), and reoperation (p < 0.001; OR, 22.9). In multivariate regression controlling for age, sex, syndrome status, and orofacial cleft history, use of patient-specific mandibular plates was associated with infection (p = 0.017; adjusted OR, 12.5), any complication (p = 0.007; adjusted OR, 11.8), readmission (p = 0.001; adjusted OR, 17.9), and reoperation (p = 0.001; adjusted OR, 18.9). In the era of patient-specific orthognathic surgery, syndromic status and use of patient-specific mandibular plates are associated with increased infection, readmission, and reoperation because of hardware-related complications. The authors' data support increased caution and counseling with use of patient-specific mandibular implants in patients with syndromic status, history of orofacial cleft, and history of previous maxillomandibular surgery given increased risk of hardware-related complications. Therapeutic, III.