Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May;143(5):1053e-1059e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005532.

Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery

Robin T Wu  1 , Alexander T Wilson  1 , Cyril S Gary  1 , Derek M Steinbacher  1
Affiliations

Complete Reoperation in Orthognathic Surgery

Robin T Wu et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 May.

Abstract

Background: Complete reoperation is defined as undergoing reoperative/repeated jaw osteotomies, in a patient who previously underwent orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe jaw positions at three time-points (before primary and before and after reoperative surgery), (2) investigate factors necessitating reoperation, and (3) outline the technical challenges.

Methods: Repeated orthognathic surgery cases >1-year out were included. Demographic, radiologic, and perioperative data were compiled. Repeated osteotomies (Le-Fort and/or bilateral split sagittal osteotomy, with or without genioplasty), were compared to their respective primary procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using t tests and z-scores.

Results: Fifteen patients were included (28.1 years; 71 percent female). Reoperative/repeated surgery was most often needed to address iatrogenic bony malposition and asymmetry. Relapse was a less common indication. Time between reoperative and primary surgery was 14 months. Sagittal discrepancies (p = 0.029) were the most frequent reason for primary orthognathic surgery (e.g., mandibular hypoplasia (p = 0.023). Reoperative/repeated orthognathic was performed for asymmetry (p = 0.014). Repeated procedures used more 3-dimensional planning (p < 0.001), required all three osteotomies (p = 0.034), had longer operative times (p = 0.078), and all required hardware removal (p < 0.001). Anatomical outcomes were good with 100% patient satisfaction at long-term follow-up.

Conclusions: Reoperative/repeated orthognathic surgery is challenging and underreported in the literature. Whereas primary orthognathic typically addressed sagittal discrepancies, reoperative/repeated osteotomies were needed to correct iatrogenic bone malposition and asymmetries. Challenges include: re-planning, scar burden, need to remove integrated hardware, and repeated osteotomy/fixation. Despite these difficulties, outcomes and patient acceptance were good.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, IV.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Williams BJ, Isom A, Laureano Filho JR, O’Ryan FS. Nasal airway function after maxillary surgery: A prospective cohort study using the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:343–350.
    1. Gokce SM, Gorgulu S, Gokce HS, Bengi AO, Karacayli U, Ors F. Evaluation of pharyngeal airway space changes after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery with a 3-dimensional simulation and modeling program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:477–492.
    1. Wolford LM, Perez D, Stevao E, Perez E. Airway space changes after nasopharyngeal adenoidectomy in conjunction with Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:665–671.
    1. Maganzini AL, Alhussain IY. Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with combined orthognathic-orthodontic approach assessed by nocturnal polysomnography. N Y State Dent J. 2008;74:36–40.
    1. Schneider D, Kämmerer PW, Schön G, Bschorer R. A three-dimensional comparison of the pharyngeal airway after mandibular distraction osteogenesis and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:1632–1637.