Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Immediate Teeth in Fibulas Versus Standard Fibula Free Flap: A Comparison of Donor Surgical Site Infections
Timothy W Neal1, Fayette C Williams2, Jonathan Jelmini3
1Resident, Department of Surgery, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, UT Southwestern/Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, TX.
Background:
Immediate placement of dental implants with dental restoration at the leg donor site requires implant components and prosthetic materials that are not packaged sterile.
Purpose:
This study aimed to determine if there was a difference in donor surgical site infection between patients that received a fibula free flap with dental implants and immediate teeth (ITFFF: immediate teeth fibula free flap) before flap transfer to the defect site when compared to standard fibula free flaps (SFFFs) without dental implant placement.
Study Design, Setting, Sample:
A retrospective cohort study was designed and implemented. The study population was composed of patients who underwent free fibula flap transfer for the treatment of benign or malignant conditions of the head and neck from 2015 to 2022. Patients who received immediate dental implants without teeth were excluded, since those implants are sterile and buried under soft tissue.
Predictor Variable:
The surgical treatment with either ITFFF or SFFF was treated as the primary predictor variable.
Main Outcome Variable:
The primary outcome variable was postoperative donor surgical site infection.
Covariates:
There were 12 covariate variables including age, sex, diabetes diagnosis, immunosuppression/prior chemotherapy treatment, body mass index, smoking status, pack year history, pathology treated, technique for fibula donor site closure, skin paddle harvest, skin paddle area (cm2), and negative pressure wound therapy.
Analyses:
For the effect of the covariates on the primary predictor variable, χ2 analyses and t-tests were used. The effect of the primary predictor variable on the primary outcome was evaluated using χ2 analysis. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
There were 37 patients in the ITFFF group and 47 in the SFFF group. The donor site infection rate for the entire study population was 2.38%. In the ITFFF group, there was 1 donor surgical site infection (2.70%), and in the SFFF group there was also 1 donor surgical site infection (2.13%). There was no significant difference in donor surgical site infection between the groups (P = .86).
Conclusion And Relevance:
This study found no difference in donor surgical site infection rates between patients who received ITFFF versus SFFF. The overall donor surgical site infection rate following fibula free flap is low.
