Complication of osteo reconstruction by utilizing free vascularized fibular bone graft

• Published in: BMC surgery Vol. 20; no. 1; p. 216
• Main Authors: Ou, Qifeng, Wu, Panfeng, Zhou, Zhengbing, Pan, Ding, Tang, Ju-Yu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 02.10.2020; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Accidental Falls; Aged; Ankle; Biomedical materials; Bone grafts; Bone Transplantation; Cardiovascular disease; Complications; Extremities; Fear; Fibula - surgery; Fibular epiphyseal transfer; Free vascularized fibular graft; Genetic disorders; Grafting; Grafts; Humans; Mandible; Medical imaging; Morbidity; Osteo reconstruction; Osteonecrosis; Patients; Penis; Prospective Studies; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures; Rehabilitation; Review; Skin & tissue grafts; Spine; Substitute bone; Surgery; Trauma; Walking; Free vascularized fibular graft; Mandible; Spine; Complication; Fibular epiphyseal transfer; Extremities; Osteo reconstruction
• ISSN: 1471-2482; 1471-2482
• DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-00875-9

The success of free vascularized fibular bone graft (FVFBG) has accelerated the osteo reconstruction which results from trauma, resection of a tumor or an infectious bone segment, or correction of congenital deformity. But the complication behind should not be overlooked. The failure could necessitate a second surgery, which prolong the rehabilitation period and produce further health cost. Worst, the patients may suffer a permanent impaired ankle function, or a sustained morpho-functional loss on reconstructive area which are hard to save. To provide an overview of the complication related to reconstruction by FVFBG, a narrative review is conducted to identify the complications including their types and rates, the contributing factors, the approaches to measure and the techniques to avoid. Methodologically, by quick research on Pubmed and abstract reading of reviews, we characterize five reconstructive areas where FVFBG were most frequently applied: extremities, mandible, spine, osteonecrosis of femoral head, and penile. Following, the complications on different reconstructive areas are retrieved, studied and presented in five (or more specifically, six) separate sections. By the way, meaningful difference between FVFBG and other bone flap was presented in a few words if necessary. Donor-site morbidities were studied and summarized as a whole. In these literatures, the evidences documented on limb and mandibular reconstruction have the fullest detail, followed by the spine and lastly the penile. In conclusion, FVFBG, though a mature technique, needs further deep and comprehensive study and maybe device-based assistance to achieve better reconstructive effect and minimize donor-site damage.