Retrospective observational study explores donor-site selection patterns in pediatric maxillary reconstruction, indicating age-related variations.
Background: Reconstruction of maxillary defects in pediatric patients presents unique challenges related to craniofacial growth, functional rehabilitation, and long-term treatment planning. Although microvascular free-flap reconstruction is established in pediatric head and neck surgery, maxilla-specific data remain limited. This study aimed to describe donor-site selection patterns in pediatric maxillary microvascular reconstruction and to explore their relationship with patient age. Methods: This retrospective observational study included pediatric patients (aged 1–18 years) who underwent microvascular free-flap reconstruction of the maxilla between August 2011 and September 2025 at a single tertiary referral center. Clinical variables included age, defect characteristics, reconstruction timing, donor-site, and total flap loss. Donor-site selection patterns were analyzed in relation to patient age using nonparametric statistical methods. Results: Fifty-five patients were included. Overall flap survival was 81.82% (45/55). Donor-site selection demonstrated a significant association with patient age (p < 0.05). Younger children were more frequently reconstructed using soft-tissue flaps, whereas osseous flaps were more commonly used in older children and adolescents. No significant relationship was found between age and defect extent or reconstruction timing. Conclusions: In this single-center experience, pediatric maxillary reconstruction followed an age-adapted pattern, with soft-tissue flaps preferentially used in younger patients and osseous flaps more frequently selected in older children. These findings reflect differences in reconstructive priorities across developmental stages and support individualized planning in pediatric maxillary reconstruction. Age alone was not associated with total flap loss; however, this analysis was limited by the small number of flap loss events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lech et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: