Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2003; 42(05): 210-214
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1625191
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

18F-FDG PET: early postoperative period of oro-maxillo-facial flaps

18F-FDG PET in der unmittelbar postoperativen Beurteilung von kieferchirurgischen freien Lappen
R. M. Aigner
1   Departments of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Reingard M. Aigner)
,
G. Schultes
2   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. H. Kärcher), Karl-Franzens University Graz, Austria
,
G. Wolf
1   Departments of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Reingard M. Aigner)
,
Y. Yamashita
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kyushu Dental College Kitakyushu, Japan
,
E. Sorantin
1   Departments of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Reingard M. Aigner)
,
H. Kärcher
2   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. H. Kärcher), Karl-Franzens University Graz, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 22 April 2003

in revised form: 23 June 2003

Publication Date:
10 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary:

Aim: We addressed the feasibility of FDG-PET to differentiate between viability and non-viability in the immediate postoperative assessment of flaps (autologous microvascular anastomosed pedicled flaps) in oro-maxillo-facial surgery. Methods: 3-7 days after surgery, FDG-PET was done in 38 patients who had received flaps for reconstruction of the mandible after partial resection. The studies were done on a dedicated full ring PET-scanner (ECAT EXACT HR+, Siemens/CTI). Acquisition started between 60 and 80 min post injection. The findings of the soft tissue component of the flaps were grouped using a three point scale: (I) no defect, (II) small defects, (III) one large defect. The results of PET were compared with the clinical course for at least 3 months. Results: “No defect” on the FDG-PET study identified viability of the flap and predicted normal clinical follow-up (22/38 patients). “Small defects” visualized areas of decreased perfusion and decreased glucose metabolism indicating risk of non-viability (13/38 patients); adapting the postsurgical management led to delayed but uncomplicated healing of the flaps in these patients. “One large defect” demonstrated early necrosis of the flap (3/38 patients). After removal and replacement of this necrotic portion of the flap the second FDG-PET scan of these 3 patients demonstrated the uncomplicated post-operative healing. Conclusion: FDG-PET facilitated the assessment of viability and non viability of flaps in the immediate postsurgical period, and demonstrated the usefulness of FDG-PET for postoperative care and prognosis.

Zusammenfassung:

Ziel: Untersuchung der Einsatzmöglichkeit von FDG-PET für die Diagnostik bzw. den Ausschluss der Frühnekrose von mikrovaskulär, gefäßgestielten Transplantaten (freien Lappen) in der Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie. Patienten, Methoden: Die FDG-PET wurde an 38 Patienten, die freie Lappen erhalten hatten, 3-7 Tage post operationem durchgeführt. Die Untersuchungen wurden an einem ECAT EXACT HR+ Vollring-PET-Scanner durchgeführt. Die PET-Befunde der Weichteilkomponente wurden je nach Untersuchungsergebnis 3 Gruppen zugeordnet: (I) kein Defekt, (II) kleine Defekte, (III) ein großer Defekt. Diese Ergebnisse wurden mit dem klinischen Verlauf über mindestens 3 Monate verglichen. Ergebnisse: »Kein Defekt« bedeutete Vitalität und guter postoperativer Heilungsverlauf (22/38 Patienten). »Kleine Defekte« stellten Bezirke mit beeinträchtigtem Glukosestoffwechsel dar; dieser Befund bedeutete somit Risiko von Defektheilung resp. Frühnekrose (13/38 Patienten). Ein solitärer, großer Aktivitätsdefekt bedeutete definitiv Frühnekrose (3/38 Patienten). Nach chirurgischer Entfernung der nekrotischen Anteile demonstrierte der erneute PET-Scan dieser 3 Patienten den unkomplizierten Heilungsprozess. Schlussfolgerung: FDG-PET ist in der unmittelbar postoperativen Verlaufskontrolle resp. in der Vitalitätsdiagnostik von freien Lappen eine effektive Untersuchungsmodalität, die zudem eine verlässliche prognostische Beurteilung erlaubt.

Key words:

Flap - maxillo-facial - tumour - FDG - PET - viability

Schlüsselwörter:

Freier Lappen - Kieferchirurgie - Tumor - FDG - PET - Vitalität
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Aigner RM, Ruda C, Fueger GF. et al. Combined Tc-99m-MDP and Tc-99m-tetrofosmin scintigraphy in the follow-up of microvascular anastomosed flaps. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24: 974.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Atula T, Silvoniemi P, Kurki T. et al. The evaluation and treatment of the neck in carcinoma of the oral cavity. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1997; 529: 223-5.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bengel FM, Ueberfuhr P, Ziegler SI. et al. Noninvasive assessment of the effect of cardiac sympathetic innervation on metabolism of the human heart. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27: 1650-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berding G, Schliephake H, van-den-Hoff J. et al. Assessment of the incorporation of rvascularized fibula grafts used for mandibular reconstruction with F-18-PET. Nuklearmedizin 2001; 40: 51-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chang DW, Oh HK, Robb GL. et al. Management of advanced mandibular osteoradionecrosis with free flap reconstruction. Head Neck 2001; 23: 830-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dee P, Lambruschi PG, Hiebert JM. The use of Tc-99m MDP bone scanning in the study of vascularized bone implants. J Nucl Med 1981; 22: 522-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Demir Y, Latifoglu O, Yavuzer R. et al. Oral commissure reconstruction with split masseter muscle transposition and cheek skin flap. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 351-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dierks EJ, Karakourtis MH. Segmental resection of the anterior mandibular arch with fibular microvascular reconstruction. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 1997; 5: 55-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Evans HB, Brown S, Hurst LN. The effects of early postoperative radiation on vascularized bone grafts. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 26: 505-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Foster RD, Anthony JP, Sharma A. et al. Vascularized bone flaps versus nonvascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction: an outcome analysis of primary bony union and endosseous implant success. Head Neck 1999; 21: 66-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Harada H, Takinami S, Makino S. et al. Three-phase bone scintigraphy and viability of vascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 29: 280-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hervas I, Floria LM, Bello P. et al. Micro-vascularized fibular graft for mandibular reconstruction: detection of viabilitiy by bone scintigraphy and SPECT. Clin Nucl Med 2001; 26: 225-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ji Y, Li T, Shamburger S. et al. Microsurgical anterolateral thigh fasciocutaneous flap for facial contour correction in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Microsurgery 2002; 22: 34-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kärcher H, Fueger G, Borbely L. Bone scintigraphy of vascularized bone transfer in maxillo-facial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988; 65: 519-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kaya Z, Kotzerke J, Keller F. FDG PET diagnosis of septic kidney in a renal transplant patient. Transpl Int 1999; 12: 156.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Keller EE, Tolman D, Eckert S. Endosseous implant and autogenous bone graft reconstruction of mandibular discontinuity: a 12-year longitudinal study of 31 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 767-80.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lee HK, Markowitz J. 99m-Technetium diphosphate bone scanning of the mandibular bone graft. Oral Surg 1980; 49: 471-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mandpe AH, Singer MI, Kaplan MJ. et al. Allo-plastic and microvascular restoration of the mandible: a comparison study. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 224-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moscowitz GW, Lukash F. Evaluation of bone graft viability. Semin Nucl Med 1988; 18: 246-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Navarro-Vila C, Borja-Morant A, Cuesta M. et al. Aesthetic and functional reconstruction with the trapezius ossomyocutaneus flap and dental implants in oral cavity cancer patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1996; 322-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nishi S, Hashimoto N, Todaka T. et al. Cosmetic osteoplastic craniotomy with a chisel and hammer. Surg Neurol 1999; 51: 571-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ord RA, Sarmadi M, Papadimitrou J. A comparison of segmental and marginal bony resection for oral squamous cell carcinoma involving the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 55: 470-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pogrel MA, Podlesh S, Anthony JP. et al. A comparison of vascularized and non-vascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 55: 1200-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Politi M, Costa F, Robiony M. et al. Review of segmental and marginal resection of the mandible in patients with oral cancer. Acta Otolaryngol 2000; 120: 569-79.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Preda L, Dore R, Benazzo M. et al. The role of computed tomography in the preoperative assessment and follow-up of oromandibular reconstruction with microvascular osteomyo-cutaneous free flaps. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 338-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ramsay SC, Yeates MG, Ho LCY. Bone scanning in the early assessment of nasal bone graft viability. J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 33-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Reinert S. The free revascularized lateral upper arm flap in maxillofacial reconstruction following ablative tumour surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2000; 28: 69-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rohner D, Tan BK, Song C. et al. Repair of composite zygomatico-maxillary defects with free bone grafts and free vascularized tissue transfer. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 337-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shields AF, Graham MM, Spence AM. The role of PET imaging in clinical oncology. A current status report. In: Freeman LM. (ed). Nuclear Medicine Annual. New York: Raven Press; 1995: 129-68.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Shintani S, Yoshihama Y, Ueyama Y. et al. The usefulness of intraoral ultrasonography in the evaluation of oral cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30: 139-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sieg P, Bierwolf S. Ulnar versus radial forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: an experimental and clinical study. Head Neck 2001; 23: 967-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Smith JA, Sandler NA, Ozaki WH. et al. Subjective and objective assessment of the temporalis myofascial flap in previously operated temporomandibular joints. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57: 1058-65.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Stevenson JS, Bright RW, Dunson GL. Technetium-99m phosphate bone imaging: a method for assessing bone graft healing. Radiol 1974; 11: 391-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Uglesic V, Virag M, Varga S. et al. Reconstruction following radical maxillectomy with flaps supplied by the subscapular artery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2000; 28: 153-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wide JM, White DW, Woolgar JA. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of cervical nodal metastasis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 90-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Yokoo S, Tahara S, Tsuji Y. et al. Functional and aesthetic reconstruction of full-thickness cheek, oral commissure and vermilion. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 344-50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Zahir KS, Syed SA, Zink JR. et al. Comparison of the effects of ischemic preconditioning and surgical delay on pedicled musculocutaneous flap survival in a rat model. Ann Plast Surg 1998; 40: 422-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar