Reconstructive and prosthodontic outcomes after multiple palatomaxillary reconstructions

Kayvon F. Sharif, John R. Sims, Lauren E. Yue, Fred M. Baik, Kimberly J. Kiplagat, Daniel Buchbinder, Devin J. Okay, Raymond L. Chai, Mark L. Urken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Objective: A subset of patients who undergo major palatomaxillary reconstruction do not initially achieve their intended oncologic and/or reconstructive goals and require additional surgery. We aim to detail the unique management considerations in this patient population. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent palatomaxillary reconstruction by the senior author (m.l.u.) between 1998 and 2016. Results: Twenty-one patients required multiple reconstructions. The median time to second reconstruction was 17 months. The most common reason for a second reconstruction was for recurrent disease (10 of 21), followed by functional/aesthetic reasons (7 of 21) and osteoradionecrosis (4 of 21). Four patients went on to have a third reconstruction, and two underwent a fourth. A total of 27 reconstructions were performed, consisting of 20 soft tissue free flaps, four vascularized bone free flaps, and three locoregional flaps. Conclusion: This patient cohort represents unique oncologic and reconstructive challenges. With long-term follow-up, multiple reconstructions may be required to optimize oncologic and functional/aesthetic outcomes. This is the first series of its kind that details the reasons for, as well as the outcomes of, patients who required multiple reconstructive procedures following initial palatomaxillary reconstruction. Level of Evidence: 2B Laryngoscope, 130:2349–2353, 2020.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2349-2353
Number of pages5
Issue number10
StatePublished - 1 Oct 2020


  • Palatomaxillary
  • free flap
  • functional
  • reconstruction
  • recurrence


Dive into the research topics of 'Reconstructive and prosthodontic outcomes after multiple palatomaxillary reconstructions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this