Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Hybrid Reconstruction in Head and Neck Surgery: Integration of Virtual Planning, Navigation, and Robotic Microsurgery

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Journal of Clinical Medicine 2026, 15(8), 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15082963

Submitted:

16 March 2026

Posted:

17 March 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Reconstruction in head and neck surgery requires restoration of complex functions, including speech, swallowing, and breathing, while preserving as much facial form and patient identity as possible. Over the past decade, advances in preoperative digital planning, intraoperative technologies, and robotic platforms have reshaped reconstructive strategies, giving rise to the concept of hybrid reconstruction. Hybrid approaches integrate free tissue transfer with computer-aided design and manufacturing, virtual surgical planning, intraoperative navigation, and robot-assisted microsurgery to enhance precision, reproducibility, and functional outcomes. This narrative review examines the principles and applications of hybrid reconstruction in head and neck surgery with particular emphasis on osseous reconstruction of the mandible, maxilla, and midface. The roles of intraoperative navigation and robotic assistance as enabling tools are discussed, along with their potential benefits and current limitations. Functional and morphologic outcomes, patient-reported quality of life, and challenges related to cost, access, training, and evidence heterogeneity are critically reviewed. Hybrid reconstruction represents an advancement toward outcomes-driven, patient-centered care; however, thoughtful integration of emerging technologies and continued emphasis on rigorous outcome assessment are essential to guide responsible adoption in contemporary head and neck reconstructive surgery.
Keywords: 
head and neck reconstruction
;  
virtual surgical planning
;  
CAD/CAM
;  
robotic microsurgery
;  
free flap reconstruction
;  
surgical navigation
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Surgery

Introduction

Reconstruction of head and neck defects remains among the most technically demanding challenges in reconstructive surgery[1]. Surgeons must simultaneously restore essential functions, including speech, swallowing, and airway patency, while preserving facial morphology and the patient’s sense of identity[1,2]. Historically, reconstructive success was measured primarily by flap survival and defect coverage[3,4,5]. Contemporary reconstruction, however, has evolved toward a more nuanced objective: reliable restoration of function and form with reproducible outcomes and minimized morbidity[6,7]. Over the past decade, the reconstructive landscape has undergone substantial transformation. The increasing complexity of oncologic resections, combined with heightened expectations for functional and aesthetic outcomes, has driven adoption of advanced technologies, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM), virtual surgical planning, intraoperative navigation, robotic-assisted surgery, and emerging bioengineered solutions[8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].
Within this evolving framework, hybrid reconstruction has emerged as a unifying concept. Hybrid reconstruction refers to the integration of traditional free flap reconstruction with modern technological adjuncts. Hybrid approaches integrate established reconstruction techniques with digital planning and intraoperative technologies to enhance accuracy, efficiency, and functional outcomes[8,9,13,16]. This paradigm shift is particularly evident in osseous reconstruction of the mandible and midface where virtual planning and patient-specific implants have become increasingly common[17,18]. More recently, robot-assisted approaches have expanded the reconstructive armamentarium, enabling improved ergonomics and precision in select microsurgical applications[15,19,20,21]. This article presents a narrative review of hybrid reconstructive strategies in head and neck surgery with a focus on the integration of free tissue transfer, advanced planning technologies, intraoperative navigation, and robot-assisted microsurgery. Emphasis is placed on functional and morphologic outcomes, current challenges, and future directions in this rapidly evolving field.

Hybrid Reconstruction in Head and Neck Surgery

Hybrid reconstruction refers to the intentional integration of free tissue transfer with advanced digital and intraoperative technologies to optimize reconstructive accuracy, reproducibility, and patient-centered outcomes[10]. Unlike traditional reconstruction, where only intraoperative decision-making and surgeon experience largely determine outcomes, hybrid reconstruction additionally relies on preoperative planning, technological augmentation, and multidisciplinary coordination to guide execution[10]. At its core, hybrid reconstruction acknowledges that modern head and neck defects often exceed the limitations of single-modality solutions[10]. Complex three-dimensional skeletal defects, composite soft-tissue losses, and functionally critical anatomical regions demand precise reconstruction that balances form, function, and durability[1,22,23,24]. Digital planning platforms enable surgeons to preoperatively simulate resections and reconstructions, anticipate challenges, and design patient-specific solutions[9,25]. Intraoperative navigation further translates these plans into the operative field with improved accuracy[13].
Robotic assistance represents a complementary extension of the hybrid paradigm. In head and neck reconstruction, robotic platforms facilitate access to anatomically-constrained spaces, enhance visualization, and offer motion scaling and tremor reduction that may be advantageous in microsurgical tasks[15,21,26,27]. While clinical adoption remains limited, early experiences suggest potential benefits in flap harvest and microsurgical anastomosis, particularly in ergonomically challenging scenarios[19,28]. In the following sections, we review these components, examine their application in osseous and soft-tissue reconstruction, and critically evaluate the evidence supporting their use in contemporary head and neck reconstructive surgery.

Medical Advances and Their Impact on Hybrid Reconstruction

Advances in systemic therapies and radiation delivery have significantly altered the oncologic landscape of head and neck cancer with important downstream implications for reconstructive surgery[29,30,31,32,33,34]. Improvements in chemotherapeutic regimens, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and precision radiation techniques have enabled more effective tumor control while minimizing collateral damage to surrounding tissues[30,31,35,36,37]. As a result, surgical resections in selected patients have become more focused, facilitating reconstruction with reduced complexity and morbidity[38].
Contemporary chemotherapy and targeted systemic therapies have improved tumor response rates and local disease control, particularly in advanced-stage and previously unresectable disease[39,40,41]. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies may reduce tumor burden prior to surgery, allowing for more limited resections that preserve critical anatomic structures[42,43,44,45]. In some cases, improved oncologic responses even enables organ-preserving approaches or smaller composite defects, directly influencing reconstructive planning by decreasing the need for extensive chimeric or multilevel reconstruction[43].
Similarly, radiation therapy has undergone substantial refinement over the past decade. The widespread adoption of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy, and adaptive radiation planning has improved conformality and reduced radiation exposure to adjacent normal tissues, which has several important implications[30,46,47,48,49]. Better preservation of recipient vessels and decreased surrounding soft tissue fibrosis expands reconstructive options and improves flap reliability, particularly in delayed or salvage settings[50,51]. Reduced radiation-associated tissue injury may also facilitate simpler soft-tissue reconstruction, decrease wound-healing complications, and lower rates of fistula formation[50,51,52]. In select cases, improved tissue quality even allows for reconstruction using smaller flaps or less extensive composite approaches[53,54].
Importantly, advances in oncologic therapy have also influenced the timing and sequencing of reconstruction. Enhanced systemic disease control and improved patient tolerance of multimodal therapy have enabled more predictable coordination between oncologic resection and reconstruction[55,56]. This predictability supports preoperative planning and integration of hybrid reconstructive strategies, allowing surgeons to tailor reconstruction to anticipated defect size and functional requirements with greater confidence[2,8,57].
Despite these benefits, modern oncologic therapies introduce new considerations for reconstruction. Immunotherapy and targeted agents may affect wound healing and inflammatory responses, while cumulative radiation dose remains a critical determinant of tissue quality[58,59,60,61]. As survival improves, reconstructive goals increasingly emphasize long-term functional durability and quality of life, necessitating careful consideration of how prior and planned therapies influence reconstructive choice[62,63]. Overall, advances in chemotherapy and radiation therapy have contributed to a shift toward smaller, more precise resections in appropriately selected patients, reducing reconstructive burden and enabling more tailored approaches[31,42,43,44,45,49,64]. These oncologic developments complement advances in hybrid reconstruction by creating an environment in which precision planning, focused reconstruction, and function-driven outcomes can be more consistently achieved[2,8,57,62,63].

Preoperative Digital Planning and Virtual Surgical Simulation

Preoperative digital planning has become a foundational component of hybrid reconstruction in head and neck surgery[8,25,65]. Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and virtual surgical planning (VSP) enable surgeons to transition from intraoperative improvisation toward predefined, patient-specific reconstructive strategies, particularly in complex osseous and composite defects[9,11,66]. Virtual planning platforms allow three-dimensional reconstruction of patient anatomy using preoperative imaging, facilitating precise assessment of defect geometry, occlusion, and spatial relationships[9,10,67,68,69,70]. In mandibular and midface reconstruction, this capability is especially valuable for defining osteotomy location, segment length, and orientation prior to surgery[68,69,70]. By simulating both resection and reconstruction, surgeons can anticipate reconstructive challenges and optimize flap design, fixation strategies, and implant selection before entering the operating room[8,10,25,65,68].
One of the principal advantages of digital planning is reproducibility. Patient-specific cutting guides and prebent or custom-fabricated fixation plates translate virtual plans into predictable intraoperative execution, reducing variability associated with freehand techniques[71,72,73,74]. Multiple studies have demonstrated improved accuracy of bony reconstruction, restoration of mandibular contour, and occlusal alignment when CAD/CAM-assisted techniques are employed, particularly in complex or multi-segment reconstructions[71,72,73,75]. Beyond skeletal accuracy, digital planning contributes to operative efficiency. Predefined osteotomies and fixation strategies have been found to reduce ischemia time, shorten operative duration, and streamline multidisciplinary coordination between ablative and reconstructive teams[8,75,76,77,78,79]. These efficiencies are particularly relevant in high-risk patients or prolonged oncologic resections, where operative time and physiologic stress are critical considerations[80].
Despite these advantages, digital planning is not without limitations. Preoperative plans are inherently static and may not fully account for intraoperative findings such as unexpected tumor extent, tissue quality, or vascular variability[10,25,69,81]. Additionally, reliance on external vendors, production timelines, and increased costs may limit accessibility, particularly in resource-constrained settings[82,83,84]. Surgeon familiarity with planning software and interpretation of virtual models also introduces a learning curve that may affect early adoption[11,85].
Importantly, digital planning should be viewed as an enabling framework rather than a rigid protocol, particularly because oncologic resections may occasionally exceed anticipated margins. In these situations, surgeons must have additional plans in place as well as be able to fall back on their traditional surgical principles. The true value of CAD/CAM lies in its ability to enhance precision while preserving the surgeon’s capacity to adapt intraoperatively[25,86].

Hybrid Bone Reconstruction in Head and Neck Surgery

Osseous reconstruction represents one of the most technically demanding domains in head and neck surgery and has become the primary setting in which hybrid reconstructive principles have been most widely adopted[1,17,88]. Restoration of skeletal continuity, occlusion, facial projection, and load-bearing function often requires a level of precision that exceeds what can reliably be achieved with biologic tissue transfer alone[89,90]. As a result, hybrid bone reconstruction, integrating free osseous flaps with digital planning and technological adjuncts, has emerged as a contemporary standard for complex mandibular, maxillary, and midface defects[8,91,92].

Mandibular Reconstruction

Mandibular reconstruction exemplifies the evolution toward hybrid approaches. The fibula free flap remains the workhorse for mandibular defects due to its reliable vascular anatomy, length, and capacity for multi-segment osteotomies[93,94]. However, traditional freehand fibula reconstruction is limited by variability in osteotomy accuracy, plate contouring, and occlusal alignment[87,95,96,97,98,99]. CAD/CAM-assisted planning has addressed these limitations by enabling precise definition of defect geometry, osteotomy sequence, and fixation strategy prior to surgery[95,96].
Hybrid mandibular reconstruction typically combines virtual surgical planning, patient-specific cutting guides, and precontoured or custom fixation plates with free fibula transfer[73,100,101,102]. This integration improves alignment of bony segments, restoration of mandibular contour, and reproducibility of occlusion[18,68,86,103,104,105]. Several studies have demonstrated improved accuracy and reduced intersegmental gaps when compared with conventional techniques, particularly in large or multi-segment defects[68,95,100,103]. Beyond geometric accuracy, hybrid approaches may enhance functional outcomes[105,106,107,108,109,110]. Improved occlusal alignment facilitates mastication and speech rehabilitation, while more anatomic mandibular contour contributes to facial symmetry and patient-reported satisfaction[105,106,107,108,109,110]. Importantly, hybrid planning also allows reconstruction to be designed with future dental rehabilitation in mind, aligning reconstructive goals with long-term functional restoration[89,105,106,107,108].

Maxillary and Midface Reconstruction

Hybrid reconstruction has also gained prominence in maxillary and midface defects, where three-dimensional complexity and proximity to critical structures pose substantial challenges[92,111,112,113,114]. Restoration of midface projection, orbital support, and palatal integrity is essential for speech, swallowing, ocular function, and facial aesthetics[112,115,116,117]. Virtual planning enables accurate reconstruction of skeletal buttresses and facilitates integration of free tissue transfer with patient-specific implants or fixation systems[113,118,119,120,121].
In maxillary reconstruction, hybrid strategies often combine free tissue transfer, such as fibula or scapular flaps, with CAD/CAM-designed plates or implants to reestablish midfacial architecture[92,114,122,123]. Digital planning allows precise positioning of bony segments relative to the cranial base and orbit, improving symmetry and reducing postoperative malocclusion or enophthalmos[119,121,123,124]. These benefits are particularly relevant in extensive defects or secondary reconstructions, where anatomic landmarks may be distorted or absent[124,125,126].

Functional Considerations in Hybrid Bone Reconstruction

A defining feature of hybrid bone reconstruction is its emphasis on functional restoration as a primary endpoint[127]. Skeletal accuracy alone is insufficient if reconstruction fails to support speech, swallowing, mastication, and airway stability[10]. Hybrid approaches facilitate preoperative consideration of functional outcomes by enabling surgeons to simulate occlusion, anticipate soft-tissue requirements, and coordinate multidisciplinary input from dental specialists, speech-language pathologists, and maxillofacial prosthodontists[78,128,129]. Additionally, hybrid reconstruction promotes consistency across cases, which is particularly valuable in high-volume centers and teaching institutions[11,85,130]. Standardized planning and execution may reduce variability in outcomes, improve efficiency, and enhance training by providing reproducible reconstructive frameworks[8,10,11,85,130].

Limitations and Current Challenges

Despite its advantages, hybrid bone reconstruction is not universally applicable. Increased costs, dependence on specialized infrastructure, and extended preoperative planning timelines may limit accessibility[25,82,83,84]. Furthermore, unanticipated intraoperative findings, such as altered resection margins or vascular anomalies, may necessitate deviation from preoperative plans[86,131]. In these scenarios, surgeon experience and adaptability remain paramount[86,131]. Hybrid bone reconstruction therefore represents an augmentation rather than a replacement of traditional reconstructive principles[10,25,85]. Its success depends on thoughtful integration of technology with sound surgical judgment, appropriate patient selection, and institutional support[25,85].

Intraoperative Technologies as Enabling Tools in Hybrid Reconstruction

While preoperative digital planning establishes the foundation for hybrid reconstruction, intraoperative technologies are essential for translating virtual plans into accurate and reproducible surgical execution[15]. In head and neck reconstruction, intraoperative navigation and robot-assisted techniques function as enabling tools that bridge the gap between planning and performance, particularly in anatomically complex and spatially constrained reconstructions[13,15,132].

Intraoperative Navigation and Real-Time Guidance

Intraoperative navigation has emerged as a valuable adjunct in hybrid head and neck reconstruction, particularly for osseous reconstruction of the mandible, maxilla, and midface[13,126,133]. Navigation systems allow real-time spatial tracking of surgical instruments relative to preoperative imaging, facilitating accurate execution of planned osteotomies, implant positioning, and skeletal alignment[71,133,134,135,136].
When integrated with CAD/CAM planning, navigation enhances the fidelity of reconstruction by verifying that intraoperative steps adhere to the virtual plan[70,87,137]. This capability is particularly relevant in scenarios where anatomic landmarks are distorted or absent, such as revision surgery, secondary reconstruction, or extensive oncologic resections[126,137,138]. Navigation may also serve as a confirmatory tool, allowing surgeons to assess alignment and symmetry intraoperatively before definitive fixation[87]. Several studies have demonstrated improved accuracy of bone placement and reduced deviation from planned reconstructions when navigation is employed[13,70,87,139]. However, its routine use remains limited by increased operative setup time, equipment costs, and the need for institutional expertise[87,140].

Robot-Assisted Microsurgery

Robot-assisted surgery represents a more recent addition to the hybrid reconstructive paradigm[141]. In head and neck reconstruction, robotic platforms have been utilized to improve access to anatomically constrained regions, enhance visualization, and address ergonomic challenges inherent to microsurgical work[15,19,21,26]. Robot-assisted approaches have been described in flap harvest, inset, and, more recently, microsurgical anastomosis[15,19,142,143]. Potential advantages include motion scaling, tremor filtration, and improved surgeon ergonomics, which may be particularly beneficial during prolonged procedures or in confined operative fields[15,19,144,145,146]. In reconstructive settings, robotic assistance may facilitate precise flap inset in deep oropharyngeal or skull base defects where conventional exposure is limited[28,147].
Robot-assisted microsurgery remains in an early phase of clinical adoption, with limited but growing evidence supporting its feasibility[15,19,26,148]. While initial reports suggest technical advantages, robust comparative data demonstrating superiority over conventional microsurgery are lacking[19,148]. Barriers to widespread adoption include cost, system availability, extended operative times during the learning phase, and the need for specialized training[26,148,149,150]. Importantly, robotic platforms must be viewed as adjunctive tools rather than replacements for microsurgical expertise[148]. Their role in hybrid reconstruction is best understood as expanding the surgeon’s technical capabilities in selected scenarios, rather than redefining reconstructive principles[129,148].

Integration of Intraoperative Technologies within Hybrid Reconstruction

The true value of intraoperative technologies lies in their integration within a broader hybrid reconstructive framework. Navigation and robotic assistance are most effective when guided by thoughtful preoperative planning and applied selectively based on defect complexity, anatomic constraints, and institutional resources[151,152,153]. When used appropriately, these tools enhance reconstruction without undermining surgical adaptability[15,20,26,151]. As hybrid reconstruction continues to evolve, future studies will be necessary to define evidence-based indications for intraoperative technologies, assess their impact on long-term functional outcomes, and determine cost-effectiveness[26,151,154,155]. Until such data are available, adoption should remain judicious and outcomes-driven.

Functional and Morphologic Outcomes in Hybrid Head and Neck Reconstruction

Contemporary head and neck reconstruction has shifted from a primary focus on defect coverage and flap survival toward a more comprehensive evaluation of functional and morphologic outcomes[16,156]. Speech intelligibility, swallowing efficiency, airway stability, facial symmetry, and patient-reported quality of life are now recognized as critical endpoints[157,158,159]. Hybrid reconstruction, by enhancing precision and reproducibility, has the potential to improve these outcomes across a range of complex defects[8,104,160].

Functional Outcomes

Functional restoration is central to successful head and neck reconstruction[89]. Accurate skeletal reconstruction plays a foundational role in speech articulation, mastication, and swallowing by reestablishing appropriate anatomic relationships between the mandible, maxilla, tongue, and pharynx[89,115,161,162]. Hybrid bone reconstruction facilitates precise restoration of occlusion and mandibular continuity, which in turn supports more effective oral intake and speech rehabilitation[70,105,108,133,163,164].
Several studies have suggested that CAD/CAM-assisted reconstruction may improve early functional outcomes by reducing malocclusion, segmental misalignment, and instability[8,11,12,91,165,166]. Improved accuracy may also facilitate earlier initiation of oral feeding and speech therapy, particularly in complex mandibular and midface reconstructions[12,163,165]. While long-term functional data remain limited, early results support the role of hybrid approaches in enhancing functional predictability[65].
Airway management is another critical consideration, particularly in extensive midface or mandibular reconstructions[167,168,169]. Accurate skeletal positioning and soft-tissue support may reduce the risk of airway compromise and improve long-term airway stability[170,171,172,173]. In select cases, hybrid planning enables anticipation of airway challenges and coordination of reconstructive strategies that minimize postoperative respiratory morbidity[124,174,175].

Morphologic and Aesthetic Outcomes

Preservation and restoration of facial morphology are essential to patient identity and psychosocial well-being[7,176,177]. Hybrid reconstruction enables more accurate restoration of facial contours, projection, and symmetry by replicating pre-morbid anatomy through virtual planning[9,11,124,178]. This precision is particularly valuable in the midface and mandible, where small deviations in skeletal alignment can result in significant aesthetic asymmetry[104,175].
Patient-specific implants and precontoured fixation systems contribute to consistent facial contouring, reducing reliance on intraoperative estimation[179,180,181,182]. Improved morphologic outcomes may translate into higher patient satisfaction and reduced need for secondary revision procedures, although high-quality comparative data remain limited[165,180].
Importantly, hybrid reconstruction also supports planning for secondary aesthetic refinements and dental rehabilitation[106,107,183,184,185]. By restoring skeletal architecture with greater accuracy, subsequent interventions, such as dental implants or soft-tissue contouring, can be performed more predictably, contributing to long-term aesthetic and functional success[106,107].

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly recognized as essential in evaluating reconstructive success[186,187]. While data specific to hybrid reconstruction are limited, available evidence suggests that improvements in functional and morphologic accuracy correlate with enhanced quality of life and patient satisfaction[8,106,109,188,189]. Hybrid approaches may reduce variability in outcomes, which is particularly relevant for patients undergoing extensive or staged reconstruction[8,10,11,85,130].
However, the literature remains heterogeneous, with inconsistent use of validated PROMs and limited long-term follow-up[11,62,109,190]. Future studies incorporating standardized outcome measures will be critical to fully defining the patient-centered benefits of hybrid reconstruction.

Challenges, Limitations, and Controvesies in Hybrid Head and Neck Reconstruction

Despite the growing adoption of hybrid reconstructive strategies, significant challenges and unresolved controversies remain. While advanced technologies offer clear advantages, their integration into routine clinical practice raises important questions regarding cost, accessibility, training, and evidence-based utilization.

Cost, Resource Utilization, and Access

One of the primary barriers to widespread adoption of hybrid reconstruction is increased cost. Virtual surgical planning, patient-specific implants, intraoperative navigation, and robotic platforms require substantial financial investment and institutional infrastructure[82,83,84]. These costs may be difficult to justify in settings with limited resources or in healthcare systems under increasing pressure to demonstrate value-based care[82,83,84]. Furthermore, access to hybrid technologies is uneven across institutions and geographic regions. High-volume tertiary centers are more likely to possess the necessary expertise and equipment, potentially exacerbating disparities in reconstructive care[191,192]. The absence of standardized cost-effectiveness data further complicates decision-making, as improved accuracy does not always translate directly into measurable economic or clinical benefit[8,65,179,193].

Training, Learning Curves, and Workflow Integration

Hybrid reconstruction introduces additional complexity into surgical workflows and training paradigms. Surgeons must acquire familiarity with digital planning platforms, navigation systems, and robotic interfaces, often requiring collaboration with engineers and industry partners[9,10,178,194]. These learning curves may initially increase operative times and complicate team coordination[10,25]. In training environments, the balance between standardization and surgical education presents a particular challenge. While hybrid planning can enhance reproducibility, excessive reliance on preoperative plans may limit opportunities for trainees to develop intraoperative decision-making skills[25,85,195]. Ensuring that technology augments rather than replaces foundational reconstructive principles is critical for sustainable adoption.

Evidence Gaps and Outcome Heterogeneity

Although hybrid reconstruction is increasingly utilized, the supporting evidence remains heterogeneous. Many published studies are retrospective, single-institution series with limited sample sizes and variable outcome measures[66,83,85,160,165,190,196]. Comparative data demonstrating superiority over conventional techniques, particularly with respect to long-term functional and patient-reported outcomes, are limited[175,190,197].
The role of robot-assisted microsurgery is especially controversial. While early reports suggest technical feasibility and potential ergonomic advantages, robust evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes is lacking[15,19,148,198,199]. Without high-quality comparative trials, it remains unclear which patient populations derive meaningful benefit from robotic assistance in reconstruction[144].

Risk of Technology-Driven Overuse

A central controversy in hybrid reconstruction is the potential for technology-driven overuse. The availability of advanced tools may encourage their application in cases where conventional techniques would suffice, without clear evidence of added benefit[175,200]. This risk underscores the importance of outcomes-driven adoption and careful patient selection[200]. Hybrid reconstruction should not be viewed as a universal solution, but rather as a selective strategy for complex defects that justify technological augmentation[10]. Maintaining this distinction is essential to avoid unnecessary escalation of cost and complexity[10].

Future Directions in Hybrid Head and Neck Reconstruction

Hybrid reconstruction in head and neck surgery continues to evolve as technological innovation, multidisciplinary collaboration, and outcome-driven practice converge. Future advances are likely to focus on improving personalization, and efficiency, while addressing current limitations in access and evidence generation[201,202,203]. Artificial intelligence–assisted planning represents a promising extension of digital reconstruction[204,205,206]. Machine learning algorithms may enhance preoperative planning by optimizing osteotomy design, predicting functional outcomes, and streamlining workflow integration[204,205,206,207,208]. Automation of routine planning steps could reduce reliance on external vendors and shorten preoperative timelines, increasing accessibility[207,209]. Advances in bioengineered tissues and scaffold technologies may further expand the hybrid paradigm[210,211,212,213]. The integration of bioresorbable or bioactive constructs with free tissue transfer has the potential to improve tissue regeneration, reduce donor-site morbidity, and enhance long-term reconstructive durability[16,214,215]. As these technologies mature, hybrid reconstruction may increasingly combine biologic and engineered solutions in a patient-specific manner.
Robot-assisted microsurgery is also likely to evolve as platforms become more refined and specialized for reconstructive applications. Improvements in haptic feedback, instrument dexterity, and microsurgical precision may expand the role of robotics beyond selected cases[21,27,148,216]. Future research should prioritize defining evidence-based indications, evaluating functional outcomes, and assessing cost-effectiveness to guide responsible adoption. Finally, standardized reporting of functional and patient-reported outcomes will be essential to advancing the field[217]. Consensus-driven outcome measures will enable meaningful comparison across reconstructive strategies and facilitate evidence-based integration of emerging technologies[217].

Conclusions

Hybrid reconstruction represents a paradigm shift in head and neck reconstructive surgery, reflecting a broader transition from survival-focused care toward restoration of function, form, and patient identity. By integrating free tissue transfer with digital planning, intraoperative navigation, and robot-assisted techniques, hybrid approaches enhance precision, reproducibility, and functional predictability in complex reconstructions. Importantly, technology should serve as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, sound surgical judgment. Thoughtful, outcomes-driven application of hybrid strategies is essential to maximize benefit while minimizing unnecessary complexity and cost. As the field continues to evolve, continued emphasis on multidisciplinary collaboration, rigorous outcome assessment, and patient-centered care will define the future of head and neck reconstruction.

Author Contributions

TJS, RL, ABJ contributed to the conceptualization, literature search, and writing of the manuscript. AJ, JPL contributed to the conceptualization, and critical review and editing of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors have no funding sources to report.

Acknowledgements

The authors have no acknowledgments related to this paper to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest related to this paper to report.

References

  1. Hanasono, MM; Matros, E; Disa, JJ. Important aspects of head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014, 134(6), 968e–980e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ragbir, M; Brown, JS; Mehanna, H. Reconstructive considerations in head and neck surgical oncology: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2016, 130(S2), S191–S197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gerressen, M; Pastaschek, CI; Riediger, D; et al. Microsurgical free flap reconstructions of head and neck region in 406 cases: a 13-year experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013, 71(3), 628–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wu, CC; Lin, PY; Chew, KY; Kuo, YR. Free tissue transfers in head and neck reconstruction: complications, outcomes and strategies for management of flap failure: analysis of 2019 flaps in single institute. Microsurgery 2014, 34(5), 339–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ho, MW; Nugent, M; Puglia, F; et al. Results of flap reconstruction: categorisation to reflect outcomes and process in the management of head and neck defects. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019, 57(9), 935–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gao, RW; Nuyen, BA; Divi, V; Sirjani, D; Rosenthal, EL. Outcomes in Head and Neck Resections That Require Multiple-Flap Reconstructions: A Systematic Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018, 144(8), 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zebolsky, AL; Patel, N; Heaton, CM; Park, AM; Seth, R; Knott, PD. Patient-Reported Aesthetic and Psychosocial Outcomes After Microvascular Reconstruction for Head and Neck Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021, 147(12), 1035–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Padilla, PL; Mericli, AF; Largo, RD; Garvey, PB. Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing versus Conventional Surgical Planning for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021, 148(1), 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nyirjesy, SC; Heller, M; von Windheim, N; et al. The role of computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3- dimensional printing in head and neck oncologic surgery: A review and future directions. Oral Oncol 2022, 132, 105976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Largo, RD; Garvey, PB. Updates in Head and Neck Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018, 141(2), 271e–285e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rodby, KA; Turin, S; Jacobs, RJ; et al. Advances in oncologic head and neck reconstruction: systematic review and future considerations of virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014, 67(9), 1171–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bengur, FB; Humar, P; Saadoun, R; et al. Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing in Free Fibula Reconstruction of the Mandible: Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025, 155(5), 910e–920e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Soh, HY; Hu, LH; Yu, Y; Wang, T; Zhang, WB; Peng, X. Navigation-assisted maxillofacial reconstruction: accuracy and predictability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022, 51(7), 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rotter, N; Haisch, A; Bucheler, M. Cartilage and bone tissue engineering for reconstructive head and neck surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2005, 262(7), 539–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rehman, U; Whiteman, E; Sarwar, MS; Brennan, PA. Reconstruction of head and neck oncological soft tissue defects post-resection using robotic surgery: a systematic review of the current literature. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023, 61(8), 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Staricha, KL; Smith, JD; Raad, RA; et al. Next generation of head and neck free flap reconstruction: the future of innovation and refinement. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2025, 33(5), 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Barr, ML; Haveles, CS; Rezzadeh, KS; et al. Virtual Surgical Planning for Mandibular Reconstruction With the Fibula Free Flap: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg 2020, 84(1), 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Pucci, R; Weyh, A; Smotherman, C; Valentini, V; Bunnell, A; Fernandes, R. Accuracy of virtual planned surgery versus conventional free-hand surgery for reconstruction of the mandible with osteocutaneous free flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020, 49(9), 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sudarman, JP; Triatmoko, SE; Siburian, ES; Budiarty, A. Effectiveness and safety of robotic microsurgery in free-flap reconstruction: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2026, 115, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Song, SS; Lee, ZH; Yu, JZ. Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) in Head and Neck Reconstruction. J Clin Med 2025, 14(16). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Innocenti, M; Malzone, G; Menichini, G. First-in-Human Free Flap Tissue Reconstruction Using a Dedicated Microsurgical Robotic Platform. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023, 151(5), 1078–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ghantous, Y; Nashef, A; Mohanna, A; Abu-El-Naaj, I. Three-Dimensional Technology Applications in Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery: Current Surgical Implications. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2020, 10(12). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Molteni, G; Gazzini, L; Plotegher, C; et al. Reconstruction of Complex Oromandibular Defects in Head and Neck Cancer: Role of the Chimeric Subscapular Free Flap. J Craniofac Surg 2020, 31(3), e266–e270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Patel, SA; Chang, EI. Principles and practice of reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2015, 24(3), 473–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jones, EA; Huang, AT. Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2023, 56(4), 813–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, Y; Zhao, X; Xu, C; Yu, D; Liu, X. Robotic surgery: The convergence of digital innovations in head and neck surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2025, 53(11), 2005–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ballestin, A; Malzone, G; Menichini, G; Lucattelli, E; Innocenti, M. New Robotic System with Wristed Microinstruments Allows Precise Reconstructive Microsurgery: Preclinical Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2022, 29(12), 7859–7867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lai, CS; Lu, CT; Liu, SA; Tsai, YC; Chen, YW; Chen, IC. Robot-assisted microvascular anastomosis in head and neck free flap reconstruction: Preliminary experiences and results. Microsurgery 2019, 39(8), 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aboaid, H; Khalid, T; Hussain, A; et al. Advances and challenges in immunotherapy in head and neck cancer. Front Immunol. 2025, 16, 1596583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gupta, T; Kannan, S; Ghosh-Laskar, S; Agarwal, JP. Systematic review and meta-analyses of intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional two-dimensional and/or or three-dimensional radiotherapy in curative-intent management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One 2018, 13(7), e0200137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Frank, SJ; Busse, PM; Lee, JJ; et al. Proton versus photon radiotherapy for patients with oropharyngeal cancer in the USA: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet 2026, 407(10524), 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Imamura, Y; Kanno, M; Fujieda, S. Comparative review of KEYNOTE-689 and NIVOPOSTOP trials and their impact on perioperative immunotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2025, 140, 103018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Peterson, DE; Koyfman, SA; Yarom, N; et al. Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy: ISOO-MASCC-ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2024, 42(16), 1975–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Saba, NF; Zalaquett, NG; Rashid, S; et al. Head and Neck Cancer Salvage Surgery in the Era of Immunotherapy and Beyond: A Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2025, 151(11), 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Leeman, JE; Romesser, PB; Zhou, Y; et al. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window. Lancet Oncol 2017, 18(5), e254–e265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mody, MD; Rocco, JW; Yom, SS; Haddad, RI; Saba, NF. Head and neck cancer. Lancet 2021, 398(10318), 2289–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ritter, A; Koirala, N; Wieland, A; Kaumaya, PTP; Mitchell, DL. Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines for the Management of Recurrent and Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: A Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023, 149(2), 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feng, Y; Qiao, W; Li, Z; Li, Y. Comparative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy vs chemotherapy in resectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials and single-arm studies. BMC Med. 2025, 23(1), 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petit, C; Lacas, B; Pignon, JP; et al. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2021, 22(5), 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Fulcher, CD; Haigentz, M, Jr.; Ow, TJ; Neck, S.; Education Committee of the American H. AHNS Series: Do you know your guidelines? Principles of treatment for locally advanced or unresectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2018, 40(4), 676–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chow, LQM. Head and Neck Cancer. N Engl J Med 2020, 382(1), 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Huang, QY; Xu, LF; Wu, Y; Chen, J. Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous head and neck cancer: A retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2025, 15, 1576800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Z; Wu, B; Peng, G; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single-Arm Phase 2 Clinical Trial. Clin Cancer Res 2022, 28(15), 3268–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, Z; Wang, D; Li, G; et al. Neoadjuvant with low-dose radiotherapy, tislelizumab, albumin-bound paclitaxel, and cisplatin for resectable locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: phase II single-arm trial. Nat Commun 2025, 16(1), 4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Georgy, JT; Regi, SS; Georgy, RV; et al. Low-dose nivolumab plus induction chemotherapy for locally advanced or unresectable head and neck cancer is associated with high response rates and conversion to definitive therapy. Sci Rep. 2025, 15(1), 35110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vergeer, MR; Doornaert, PA; Rietveld, DH; Leemans, CR; Slotman, BJ; Langendijk, JA. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Den, RB; Doemer, A; Kubicek, G; et al. Daily image guidance with cone-beam computed tomography for head-and-neck cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010, 76(5), 1353–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hsieh, CH; Shueng, PW; Wang, LY; et al. Impact of postoperative daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy on overall and local progression-free survival in patients with oral cavity cancer. BMC Cancer 2016, 16, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Castelli, J; Simon, A; Lafond, C; et al. Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol. 2018, 57(10), 1284–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Miller, H; Bush, K; Delancy, M; et al. Effect of preoperative radiation on free flap outcomes for head and neck reconstruction: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022, 75(2), 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Makiuchi, Y; Kageyama, D; Arikawa, M; Akazawa, S. Vessel Selection in Head and Neck Reconstruction After Neck Dissection or Radiotherapy. Microsurgery 2025, 45(6), e70116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Dormand, EL; Banwell, PE; Goodacre, TE. Radiotherapy and wound healing. Int Wound J 2005, 2(2), 112–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Alessia, DR; Alice, B; Renaud, P; et al. Head and neck radiotherapy after reconstructive flap surgery: Results of the multicentric XFLAP1 study. Radiother Oncol 2026, 218, 111437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dunn, LA; Ho, AL; Pfister, DG. Head and Neck Cancer: A Review. JAMA 2026, 335(6), 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sun, K; Tan, JY; Thomson, PJ; Choi, SW. Influence of time between surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy on prognosis for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review. Head Neck 2023, 45(8), 2108–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Price, JM; Garcez, K; Hughes, C; et al. The effect of time from surgery to commencing adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2025, 161, 107138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fenske, J; Lampert, P; Kreiker, H; et al. Reconstructing complexity: Indications for simultaneous and chimeric free flaps in extensive maxillofacial defects. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025, 53(11), 2043–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mays, AC; Yarlagadda, B; Achim, V; et al. Examining the relationship of immunotherapy and wound complications following flap reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2021, 43(5), 1509–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pedroso, CM; de Pauli Paglioni, M; Normando, AGC; et al. Preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immunotherapy in head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical risk and pathologic response. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2025, 212, 104742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kuo, PJ; Lin, PC; Hsieh, CH. Wound healing in cancer patients under immunotherapy. Int J Surg. 2025, 111(10), 7087–7098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sindt, JE; Fitzgerald, LA; Kuznicki, J; Prelewicz, S; Odell, DW; Brogan, SE. Antiplatelet and Wound Healing Implications of Immunotherapy and Targeted Cancer Therapies in the Perioperative Period. Anesthesiology 2023, 139(4), 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. van Rooij, JAF; Roubos, J; Vrancken Peeters, N; Rijken, BFM; Corten, EML; Mureau, MAM. Long-term patient-reported outcomes after reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer: A systematic review. Head Neck 2023, 45(9), 2469–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. You, Q; Jing, X; Fan, S; Wang, Y; Yang, Z. Comparison of functional outcomes and health-related quality of life one year after treatment in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer treated with three different reconstruction methods. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020, 58(7), 759–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nutting, CM; Morden, JP; Harrington, KJ; et al. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12(2), 127–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tang, NSJ; Ahmadi, I; Ramakrishnan, A. Virtual surgical planning in fibula free flap head and neck reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019, 72(9), 1465–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chang, EI; Jenkins, MP; Patel, SA; Topham, NS. Long-Term Operative Outcomes of Preoperative Computed Tomography-Guided Virtual Surgical Planning for Osteocutaneous Free Flap Mandible Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016, 137(2), 619–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fletcher, J. Methods and Applications of 3D Patient-Specific Virtual Reconstructions in Surgery. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2022, 1356, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Elsharabasy, IM; Elhafez, H; Ahmed, SAE; Ayad, WM. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Virtual Surgical Planning for Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects Using Free Fibular Flap. J Craniofac Surg 2020, 31(4), 950–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, LH; Merema, BBJ; Kraeima, J; et al. Three-Dimensional Surgical Planning in Mandibular Cancer: A Decade of Clinical Experience and Outcomes. Cancers (Basel) 2026, 18(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Yu, Y; Zhang, WB; Liu, XJ; Guo, CB; Yu, GY; Peng, X. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Virtual Planning and Surgical Navigation for Mandibular Reconstruction With Free Fibula Flap. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016, 74(7), 1503 e1–1503 e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bernstein, JM; Daly, MJ; Chan, H; et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual cutting guides and 3D-navigation for osteotomies of the mandible and maxilla. PLoS One 2017, 12(3), e0173111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yang, WF; Choi, WS; Wong, MC; et al. Three-Dimensionally Printed Patient-Specific Surgical Plates Increase Accuracy of Oncologic Head and Neck Reconstruction Versus Conventional Surgical Plates: A Comparative Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2021, 28(1), 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lee, ZH; Alfonso, AR; Ramly, EP; et al. The Latest Evolution in Virtual Surgical Planning: Customized Reconstruction Plates in Free Fibula Flap Mandibular Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020, 146(4), 872–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mollmann, HL; Apeltrath, L; Karnatz, N; et al. Comparison of the Accuracy and Clinical Parameters of Patient-Specific and Conventionally Bended Plates for Mandibular Reconstruction. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 719028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shergill, KS; Aulakh, AS; Robibo, E; et al. The utility of patient-specific surgical plates in free flap mandibular reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol. 2025, 168, 107497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Blanc, J; Fuchsmann, C; Nistiriuc-Muntean, V; Jacquenot, P; Philouze, P; Ceruse, P. Evaluation of virtual surgical planning systems and customized devices in fibula free flap mandibular reconstruction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019, 276(12), 3477–3486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Toto, JM; Chang, EI; Agag, R; Devarajan, K; Patel, SA; Topham, NS. Improved operative efficiency of free fibula flap mandible reconstruction with patient-specific, computer-guided preoperative planning. Head Neck 2015, 37(11), 1660–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Glas, HH; Vosselman, N; de Visscher, S. The use of 3D virtual surgical planning and computer aided design in reconstruction of maxillary surgical defects. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020, 28(2), 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alhefzi, M; Redwood, J; Hatchell, AC; et al. Identifying Factors of Operative Efficiency in Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023, 149(9), 796–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Irawati, N; Every, J; Dawson, R; et al. Effect of operative time on complications associated with free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. Clin Otolaryngol 2023, 48(2), 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Pu, JJ; Lo, AWI; Wong, MCM; et al. A quantitative comparison of bone resection margin distances in virtual surgical planning versus histopathology: a prospective study. Int J Surg 2024, 110(1), 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Xiao, JB; Banyi, N; Tran, KL; Prisman, E. Cost Outcomes of Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Head Neck 2025, 47(3), 1037–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mazzola, F; Smithers, F; Cheng, K; et al. Time and cost-analysis of virtual surgical planning for head and neck reconstruction: A matched pair analysis. Oral Oncol 2020, 100, 104491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Fatima, A; Hackman, TG; Wood, JS. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Virtual Surgical Planning in Mandibular Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019, 143(4), 1185–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Awad, L; Reed, B; Adams, J; et al. Virtual surgical planning in microsurgical head and neck reconstruction: The Newcastle experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2025, 100, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Maniskas, S; Pourtaheri, N; Chandler, L; Lu, X; Bruckman, KC; Steinbacher, DM. Conformity of the Virtual Surgical Plan to the Actual Result Comparing Five Craniofacial Procedure Types. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021, 147(4), 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Harbison, RA; Shan, XF; Douglas, Z; et al. Navigation Guidance During Free Flap Mandibular Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017, 143(3), 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Balasundaram, I; Al-Hadad, I; Parmar, S. Recent advances in reconstructive oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012, 50(8), 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bevans, S; Hammer, D. Tenants of Mandibular Reconstruction in Segmental Defects. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2023, 56(4), 653–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Taylor, GI; Corlett, RJ; Ashton, MW. The Evolution of Free Vascularized Bone Transfer: A 40-Year Experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016, 137(4), 1292–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Wuster, J; Voss, PJ; Tunn, SM; et al. Comparison of CAD/CAM and conventional microvascular free bone flaps in reconstructive head and neck surgery: a retrospective analysis of over 110 cases. Clin Oral Investig 2025, 29(11), 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. D'Alpaos, D; Badiali, G; Ceccariglia, F; Nosrati, A; Tarsitano, A. Use of CAD/CAM Workflow and Patient-Specific Implants for Maxillary Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med 2026, 15(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cordeiro, PG; Disa, JJ; Hidalgo, DA; Hu, QY. Reconstruction of the mandible with osseous free flaps: a 10-year experience with 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999, 104(5), 1314–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Awad, ME; Altman, A; Elrefai, R; Shipman, P; Looney, S; Elsalanty, M. The use of vascularized fibula flap in mandibular reconstruction; A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019, 47(4), 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Powcharoen, W; Yang, WF; Yan Li, K; Zhu, W; Su, YX. Computer-Assisted versus Conventional Freehand Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibula Free Flap: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019, 144(6), 1417–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Roser, SM; Ramachandra, S; Blair, H; et al. The accuracy of virtual surgical planning in free fibula mandibular reconstruction: comparison of planned and final results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010, 68(11), 2824–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Stirling Craig, E; Yuhasz, M; Shah, A; et al. Simulated surgery and cutting guides enhance spatial positioning in free fibular mandibular reconstruction. Microsurgery 2015, 35(1), 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chen, J; Zhang, R; Liang, Y; Ma, Y; Song, S; Jiang, C. Deviation Analyses of Computer-Assisted, Template-Guided Mandibular Reconstruction With Combined Osteotomy and Reconstruction Pre-Shaped Plate Position Technology: A Comparative Study. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 719466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chang, YM; Chana, JS; Wei, FC; Tsai, CY; Chen, SH. Osteotomy to treat malocclusion following reconstruction of the mandible with the free fibula flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 112(1), 31–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, YY; Zhang, HQ; Fan, S; et al. Mandibular reconstruction with the vascularized fibula flap: comparison of virtual planning surgery and conventional surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016, 45(11), 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Bao, T; He, J; Yu, C; et al. Utilization of a pre-bent plate-positioning surgical guide system in precise mandibular reconstruction with a free fibula flap. Oral Oncol. 2017, 75, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ren, W; Gao, L; Li, S; et al. Virtual Planning and 3D printing modeling for mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018, 23(3), e359–e366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. May, MM; Howe, BM; O'Byrne, TJ; et al. Short and long-term outcomes of three-dimensional printed surgical guides and virtual surgical planning versus conventional methods for fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible: Decreased nonunion and complication rates. Head Neck 2021, 43(8), 2342–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Garajei, A; Modarresi, A; Arabkheradmand, A; Shirkhoda, M. Functional and esthetic outcomes of virtual surgical planning versus the conventional technique in mandibular reconstruction with a free fibula flap: A retrospective study of 24 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2024, 52(4), 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kang, YF; Ding, MK; Qiu, SY; Cai, ZG; Zhang, L; Shan, XF. Mandibular Reconstruction Using Iliac Flap Based on Occlusion-Driven Workflow Transferred by Digital Surgical Guides. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022, 80(11), 1858–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Salinero, L; Boczar, D; Barrow, B; et al. Patient-centred outcomes and dental implant placement in computer-aided free flap mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022, 60(10), 1283–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zhu, H; Zhang, L; Cai, Z; Shan, X. Dental Implant Rehabilitation After Jaw Reconstruction Assisted by Virtual Surgical Planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019, 34(5), 1223–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Antunez-Conde, R; Salmeron, JI; Diez-Montiel, A; et al. Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Flap and Dental Implants Through Virtual Surgical Planning and Three Different Techniques: Double-Barrel Flap, Implant Dynamic Navigation and CAD/CAM Mesh With Iliac Crest Graft. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 719712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Crosetti, E; Tos, P; Berrone, M; Battiston, B; Arrigoni, G; Succo, G. Long-Term Follow-Up of Computer-Assisted Microvascular Mandibular Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study. J Clin Med 2024, 13(13). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Al-Sabahi, ME; Jamali, OM; Shindy, MI; Moussa, BG; Amin, AA; Zedan, MH. Aesthetic Reconstruction of Onco-surgical Mandibular Defects Using Free Fibular Flap with and without CAD/CAM Customized Osteotomy Guide: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. BMC Cancer 2022, 22(1), 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Eskander, A; Kang, SY; Teknos, TN; Old, MO. Advances in midface reconstruction: beyond the reconstructive ladder. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017, 25(5), 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lee, ZH; Cripps, C; Rodriguez, ED. Current Concepts in Maxillary Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022, 150(1), 168e–175e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. McCrary, HC; Seim, NB; Old, MO. History, Innovation, Pearls, and Pitfalls in Complex Midface Reconstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2023, 56(4), 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Melville, JC; Manis, CS; Shum, JW; Alsuwied, D. Single-Unit 3D-Printed Titanium Reconstruction Plate for Maxillary Reconstruction: The Evolution of Surgical Reconstruction for Maxillary Defects-A Case Report and Review of Current Techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019, 77(4), 874 e1–874 e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Cordeiro, PG; Chen, CM. A 15-year review of midface reconstruction after total and subtotal maxillectomy: part I. Algorithm and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129(1), 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Matsui, Y; Ohno, K; Shirota, T; Imai, S; Yamashita, Y; Michi, K. Speech function following maxillectomy reconstructed by rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1995, 23(3), 160–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Dugast, S; Longis, J; Anquetil, M; et al. Reconstruction techniques of the orbit after Brown class III maxillectomy: A systematic review. Head Neck 2023, 45(6), 1581–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Verdoy, SB; Sadeghi, P; Ojeda, AL; et al. Evaluation of virtual surgical planning and three-dimensional configurations for reconstruction of maxillary defects using the fibula free flap. Microsurgery 2022, 42(8), 749–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wang, Y; Qu, X; Jiang, J; Sun, J; Zhang, C; He, Y. Aesthetical and Accuracy Outcomes of Reconstruction of Maxillary Defect by 3D Virtual Surgical Planning. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 718946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Swendseid, BP; Roden, DF; Vimawala, S; et al. Virtual Surgical Planning in Subscapular System Free Flap Reconstruction of Midface Defects. Oral Oncol. 2020, 101, 104508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Navarro Cuellar, C; Martinez, EB; Navarro Cuellar, I; et al. Primary Maxillary Reconstruction With Fibula Flap and Dental Implants: A Comparative Study Between Virtual Surgical Planning and Standard Surgery in Class IIC Defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021, 79(1), 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lim, HK; Choi, YJ; Choi, WC; Song, IS; Lee, UL. Reconstruction of maxillofacial bone defects using patient-specific long-lasting titanium implants. Sci Rep. 2022, 12(1), 7538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhang, WB; Mao, C; Liu, XJ; Guo, CB; Yu, GY; Peng, X. Outcomes of Orbital Floor Reconstruction After Extensive Maxillectomy Using the Computer-Assisted Fabricated Individual Titanium Mesh Technique. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015, 73(10), 2065 e1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Qing, H; Liu, Z; Yang, J; et al. Assessment of the efficacy of 3D virtual surgical planning compared with traditional planning in maxillofacial reconstruction for facial traumatic deformity. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2026, 54(4), 104472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Stranix, JT; Stern, CS; Rensberger, M; et al. A Virtual Surgical Planning Algorithm for Delayed Maxillomandibular Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019, 143(4), 1197–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nwagu, U; Swendseid, B; Ross, H; Ganti, R; Kane, A; Curry, JM. Maxillectomy Reconstruction Revision Using Virtual Surgical Planning and Intraoperative Navigation. Laryngoscope 2021, 131(10), E2655–E2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Prucher, GM; Gaggio, L; Neri, F; et al. Conformational Reconstruction in Head and Neck Bone Cancer: Could Fibula Free Flap Become the Gold Standard Flap? J Clin Med 2025, 14(22). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Vosselman, N; Alberga, J; Witjes, MHJ; et al. Prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients-Challenges and new developments. Oral Dis 2021, 27(1), 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wax, MK. Reconstruction-The Final Dimension in Head and Neck Surgery: The 2017 Hayes Martin Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017, 143(12), 1252–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Velarde, K; Cafino, R; Isla, A, Jr.; et al. Virtual surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery: a structured review. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon) 2023, 28(1), 2271160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Pu, JJ; Choi, WS; Yang, WF; Zhu, WY; Su, YX. Unexpected Change of Surgical Plans and Contingency Strategies in Computer-Assisted Free Flap Jaw Reconstruction: Lessons Learned From 98 Consecutive Cases. Front Oncol. 2022, 12, 746952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Zavattero, E; Ramieri, G; Volpe, F; Borbon, C. Navigation-Assisted Resection and Fibula Free-Flap Reconstruction of an Extensive Maxillary Tumor. J Craniofac Surg 2021, 32(5), e450–e452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Wu, J; Sun, J; Shen, SG; Xu, B; Li, J; Zhang, S. Computer-assisted navigation: its role in intraoperatively accurate mandibular reconstruction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016, 122(2), 134–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Brouwer de Koning, SG; Geldof, F; van Veen, RLP; et al. Electromagnetic surgical navigation in patients undergoing mandibular surgery. Sci Rep. 2021, 11(1), 4657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hasan, W; Daly, MJ; Chan, HHL; Qiu, J; Irish, JC. Intraoperative cone-beam CT-guided osteotomy navigation in mandible and maxilla surgery. Laryngoscope 2020, 130(5), 1166–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Liu, TJ; Ko, AT; Tang, YB; Lai, HS; Chien, HF; Hsieh, TM. Clinical Application of Different Surgical Navigation Systems in Complex Craniomaxillofacial Surgery: The Use of Multisurface 3-Dimensional Images and a 2-Plane Reference System. Ann Plast Surg 2016, 76(4), 411–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Nguyen, A; Vanderbeek, C; Herford, AS; Thakker, JS. Use of Virtual Surgical Planning and Virtual Dataset With Intraoperative Navigation to Guide Revision of Complex Facial Fractures: A Case Report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019, 77(4), 790 e1–790 e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ranz-Colio, A; Almeida-Parra, F; De Leyva-Moreno, P; Cardenas-Serres, C; Garcia-Cosio, M; Acero-Sanz, J. Navigation-guided resection of locally advanced midface malignancies. Does it improve the safety of oncologic resection? Oral Oncol 2023, 143, 106455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Le, PH; Hoang, HT; Lam, PH; Nguyen, TV; Le, CT. Comparison of customized plate navigation and traditional methods in mandibular reconstruction: enhanced accuracy and efficiency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Austin, RE; Antonyshyn, OM. Current applications of 3-d intraoperative navigation in craniomaxillofacial surgery: a retrospective clinical review. Ann Plast Surg 2012, 69(3), 271–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sundar, TA; Shetty, P; Hegde, P; S, S. From static to robotic: evolving navigation systems in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2026, 141(2), e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Chow, VL; Ho, VW; Lo, AS. Trans-hairline robotic neck dissection and robotic microvascular free flap reconstruction in oral cavity cancer. Oral Oncol 2026, 172, 107819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Selber, JC. Can I Make Robotic Surgery Make Sense in My Practice? Plast Reconstr Surg 2017, 139(3), 781e–792e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Seth, I; Lim, K; Chang, E; Rozen, WM; Ng, SK. Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review. Sensors (Basel) 2025, 25(10). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Feng, AL; Razavi, CR; Lakshminarayanan, P; et al. The robotic ENT microsurgery system: A novel robotic platform for microvascular surgery. Laryngoscope 2017, 127(11), 2495–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Struebing, F; Kneser, U; Bigdeli, A; et al. Ergonomic Considerations in Robotic-assisted Microsurgery. J Craniofac Surg 2025, 36(1), 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Selber, JC. Transoral robotic reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010, 126(6), 1978–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Awad, L; Bollen, E; Reed, B; et al. Clinical, Preclinical, and Educational Applications of Robotic-Assisted Flap Reconstruction and Microsurgery: A Systematic Review. Microsurgery 2024, 44(8), e31246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Lechien, JR. Learning process of transoral robotic surgery for head and neck cancers: a scoping review. Oral Oncol. 2025, 171, 107788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Oliveira, CM; Nguyen, HT; Ferraz, AR; Watters, K; Rosman, B; Rahbar, R. Robotic surgery in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: a review. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012, 2012, 286563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Holsinger, FC; Ismaila, N; Adkins, DR; et al. Transoral Robotic Surgery in the Multidisciplinary Care of Patients With Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2025, 43(11), 1369–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Lechien, JR; Paleri, V; Baudouin, R; et al. European surgical guidelines: transoral robotic surgery for head and neck cancers. Oral Oncol. 2026, 173, 107826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Liu, H; Wang, Y; Wu, C; et al. Robotic compared with open operations for cancers of the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019, 57(10), 967–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Lira, RB; Kowalski, LP. Robotic Head and Neck Surgery: Beyond TORS. Curr Oncol Rep. 2020, 22(9), 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Eu, D; Daly, MJ; Irish, JC. Imaging-based navigation technologies in head and neck surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021, 29(2), 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Arrighi-Allisan, AE; Brody, RM; Cannady, SB. Review of recent advancements in oropharyngeal reconstruction for transoral robotic surgery defects: emerging techniques, functional preservation, and technological innovations. In Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 5 Feb 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Graboyes, EM; Barbon, CEA. Optimizing Function and Appearance After Head and Neck Reconstruction: Measurement and Intervention. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2023, 56(4), 835–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Lewis, CM; Aloia, TA; Shi, W; et al. Development and Feasibility of a Specialty-Specific National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP): The Head and Neck-Reconstructive Surgery NSQIP. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016, 142(4), 321–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Mendez, A; Seikaly, H; Eurich, D; et al. Development of a Patient-Centered Functional Outcomes Questionnaire in Head and Neck Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020, 146(5), 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sabiq, F; Cherukupalli, A; Khalil, M; et al. Evaluating the benefit of virtual surgical planning on bony union rates in head and neck reconstructive surgery. Head Neck 2024, 46(6), 1322–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Tabet, P; Bellavance, S; Harris, JR; et al. Prefabricated Fibula Flap vs Bone-Driven and Delayed Implant Installation for Jaw Reconstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024, 150(6), 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Linsen, SS; Oikonomou, A; Martini, M; Teschke, M. Mandibular kinematics and maximum voluntary bite force following segmental resection of the mandible without or with reconstruction. Clin Oral Investig 2018, 22(4), 1707–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Mahendru, S; Jain, R; Aggarwal, A; et al. CAD-CAM vs conventional technique for mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flap: A comparison of outcomes. Surg Oncol 2020, 34, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ritschl, LM; Mucke, T; Fichter, AM; et al. Axiographic results of CAD/CAM-assisted microvascular, fibular free flap reconstruction of the mandible: A prospective study of 21 consecutive cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017, 45(1), 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Sun, R; Zhou, Y; Malouta, MZ; et al. Digital surgery group versus traditional experience group in head and neck reconstruction: a retrospective controlled study to analyze clinical value and time-economic-social effect. World J Surg Oncol 2022, 20(1), 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Lagana, F; Marzi Manfroni, A; Arcuri, F; Ferri, A; Bianchi, B. Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing-Guided Scapular Tip Free Flap Reconstruction for Complex Maxillofacial Defects. Microsurgery 2026, 46(1), e70176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ledderhof, NJ; Carlson, ER; Heidel, RE; Winstead, ML; Fahmy, MD; Johnston, DT. Are Tracheotomies Required for Patients Undergoing Composite Mandibular Resections for Oral Cancer? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020, 78(8), 1427–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Schuderer, JG; Reider, L; Wunschel, M; et al. Elective Tracheotomy in Patients Receiving Mandibular Reconstructions: Reduced Postoperative Ventilation Time and Lower Incidence of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia. J Clin Med. 2023, 12(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Lapis, PN; DeLacure, MD; Givi, B. Factors in Successful Elimination of Elective Tracheotomy in Mandibular Reconstruction With Microvascular Tissue. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016, 142(1), 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Tan, SK; Leung, WK; Tang, ATH; Zwahlen, RA. How does mandibular advancement with or without maxillary procedures affect pharyngeal airways? An overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One 2017, 12(7), e0181146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Niskanen, I; Kurimo, J; Jarnstedt, J; Himanen, SL; Helminen, M; Peltomaki, T. Effect of Maxillomandibular Advancement Surgery on Pharyngeal Airway Volume and Polysomnography Data in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019, 77(8), 1695–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Trevisiol, L; Bersani, M; Sanna, G; Nocini, R; D'Agostino, A. Posterior airways and orthognathic surgery: What really matters for successful long-term results? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022, 161(5), e486–e497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jiang, C; Yi, Y; Jiang, C; Fang, S; Wang, J. Pharyngeal Airway Space and Hyoid Bone Positioning After Different Orthognathic Surgeries in Skeletal Class II Patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017, 75(7), 1482–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Benito Anguita, M; Khayat, S; Lopez Martin, S; et al. Virtual Guided and Customized Orthognathic Surgery in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes. J Clin Med 2025, 14(11). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Joachim, MV; Miloro, M. The Evolution of Virtual Surgical Planning in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery: A Comprehensive Review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2025, 83(3), 294–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Chang, EI; Hanasono, MM. State-of-the-art reconstruction of midface and facial deformities. J Surg Oncol. 2016, 113(8), 962–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Hwang, K. The Wounded Face in Uniform: Surgical Reconstruction and Identity Restoration in Military Facial Trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Day, KM; Kelley, PK; Harshbarger, RJ; et al. Advanced Three-Dimensional Technologies in Craniofacial Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021, 148(1), 94e–108e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Ettinger, KS; Mohamed, AK; Nathan, JM; et al. Patient-specific Implants Improve Volumetric Surgical Accuracy Compared to Stock Reconstruction Plates in Modern Paradigm Virtual Surgical Planning of Fibular Free Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2024, 82(10), 1311–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Tran, KL; Mong, ML; Durham, JS; Prisman, E. Benefits of Patient-Specific Reconstruction Plates in Mandibular Reconstruction Surgical Simulation and Resident Education. J Clin Med 2022, 11(18). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Wurm, MC; Hagen, J; Nkenke, E; Neukam, FW; Schlittenbauer, T. The fitting accuracy of pre-bend reconstruction plates and their impact on the temporomandibular joint. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019, 47(1), 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Ong, HS; Liu, JN; Ahmed, A; et al. Improved accuracy of hemimandibular reconstructions involving the condyle by utilizing hydroformed reconstruction plates rather than hand-bent stock plates. Head Neck 2019, 41(9), 3168–3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Seier, T; Hingsammer, L; Schumann, P; Gander, T; Rucker, M; Lanzer, M. Virtual planning, simultaneous dental implantation and CAD/CAM plate fixation: a paradigm change in maxillofacial reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020, 49(7), 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Ochandiano, S; Garcia-Mato, D; Gonzalez-Alvarez, A; et al. Computer-Assisted Dental Implant Placement Following Free Flap Reconstruction: Virtual Planning, CAD/CAM Templates, Dynamic Navigation and Augmented Reality. Front Oncol. 2021, 11, 754943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Zweifel, D; Bredell, MG; Lanzer, M; Rostetter, C; Rucker, M; Studer, S. Precision of Simultaneous Guided Dental Implantation in Microvascular Fibular Flap Reconstructions With and Without Additional Guiding Splints. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019, 77(5), 971–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Sharma, K; Steele, K; Birks, M; Jones, G; Miller, G. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Plastic Surgery: An Introduction and Review of Clinical Applications. Ann Plast Surg 2019, 83(3), 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Voineskos, SH; Nelson, JA; Klassen, AF; Pusic, AL. Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Key Metrics in Reconstructive Surgery. Annu Rev Med. 2018, 69, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Alwadeai, M; Al-Aroomy, L; Amin, A; Shindy, M; Zedan, M; Baz, S. Virtual Surgical Guidance Improves Quality of Life Following Scapular Free-Flap Reconstruction of Maxillary Defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2024, 82(5), 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Petrides, GA; Dunn, M; Charters, E; et al. Health-related quality of life in maxillectomy patients undergoing dentoalveolar rehabilitation. Oral Oncol. 2022, 126, 105757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Chan, TJ; Long, C; Wang, E; Prisman, E. The state of virtual surgical planning in maxillary Reconstruction: A systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2022, 133, 106058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Madrigal, J; Mukdad, L; Han, AY; et al. Impact of Hospital Volume on Outcomes Following Head and Neck Cancer Surgery and Flap Reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2022, 132(7), 1381–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Morita, Y; Uzawa, N. Current status and prospects of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Int J Clin Oncol 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Sharaf, BA; Abushehab, A; Michaelcheck, CE; et al. Virtual surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy, operative time, and cost-effectiveness. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2025, 105, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Sharaf, B; Kuruoglu, D; Cantwell, SR; Alexander, AE; Dickens, HJ; Morris, JM. EPPOCRATIS: Expedited Preoperative Point-of-Care Reduction of Fractures to Normalized Anatomy and Three-Dimensional Printing to Improve Surgical Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022, 149(3), 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Ferretti, F; Nonis, F; Novaresio, A; et al. Virtual reality and 3D printing in head and neck cancer: an educational experience. Front Oncol. 2025, 15, 1695870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Vranckx, JJ; Desmet, O; Bila, M; Wittesaele, W; Wilssens, N; Poorten, VV. Maxillomandibular Reconstruction Using Insourced Virtual Surgical Planning and Homemade CAD/CAM: A Single-Center Evolution in 75 Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023, 152(1), 143e–154e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Hansen, EE; Sethi, RKV. Advances in virtual surgical planning for free tissue transfer. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2025, 33(4), 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Sorensen, RBA; Chakari, W; Thomsen, JB; Sorensen, JA. Evaluation of microsurgical free flap procedures utilizing the Symani Surgical System: A preliminary analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2025, 102, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Muaddi, H; Hafid, ME; Choi, WJ; et al. Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open): A Systematic Overview of Reviews. Ann Surg. 2021, 273(3), 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Wilson, CB. Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 2006, 332(7533), 112–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Teh, MT. The Precision Frontier: Revolutionising Head and Neck Cancer Management Through Theranostics, Liquid Biopsy, and AI-Powered Imaging. Cancers (Basel) 2025, 17(23). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Holsinger, FC; Birkeland, AC; Topf, MC. Precision head and neck surgery: robotics and surgical vision technology. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021, 29(2), 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Nassar, SI; Suk, A; Nguyen, SA; Adilbay, D; Pang, J; Nathan, CO. The Role of ctDNA and Liquid Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Head and Neck Cancer: Towards Precision Medicine. Cancers (Basel) 2024, 16(18). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Alter, IL; Chan, K; Lechien, J; Rameau, A. An introduction to machine learning and generative artificial intelligence for otolaryngologists-head and neck surgeons: a narrative review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024, 281(5), 2723–2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Zhong, NN; Wang, HQ; Huang, XY; et al. Enhancing head and neck tumor management with artificial intelligence: Integration and perspectives. Semin Cancer Biol. 2023, 95, 52–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Makitie, AA; Alabi, RO; Ng, SP; et al. Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Adv Ther 2023, 40(8), 3360–3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Rana, M; Sakkas, A; Zimmermann, M; Kostyuk, M; Schwarz, G. Artificial Intelligence in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Integrating Clinical Innovation and Workflow Optimization. J Clin Med 2026, 15(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Fung, E; Patel, D; Tatum, S. Artificial intelligence in maxillofacial and facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024, 32(4), 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Ostas, D; Almasan, O; Ilesan, RR; et al. Point-of-Care Virtual Surgical Planning and 3D Printing in Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2022, 11(22). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Nayak, VV; Slavin, B; Bergamo, ETP; et al. Bone Tissue Engineering (BTE) of the Craniofacial Skeleton, Part I: Evolution and Optimization of 3D-Printed Scaffolds for Repair of Defects. J Craniofac Surg 2023, 34(7), 2016–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Yazdanian, M; Alam, M; Abbasi, K; et al. Synthetic materials in craniofacial regenerative medicine: A comprehensive overview. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 987195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Najafi, N; Vartanian, KB; Eskandar, T; Ghookas, K; Rostomian, E; Agrawal, DK. Bioprinting for craniofacial reconstruction: A review of advancements, clinical use, and challenges. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025, 53(12), 2255–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Wu, Z; Wu, Y; Alam, J; et al. Hydrogels in head and neck cancer: Innovations and translational advances in research and therapy. Biomaterials 2026, 330, 124049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Accorona, R; Gazzini, L; Grigolato, R; et al. Free Periosteal Flaps with Scaffold: An Overlooked Armamentarium for Maxillary and Mandibular Reconstruction. Cancers (Basel) 2021, 13(17). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Patel, S; Ziai, K; Lighthall, JG; Walen, SG. Biologics and acellular dermal matrices in head and neck reconstruction: A comprehensive review. Am J Otolaryngol 2022, 43(1), 103233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Rapolti, D; Neumeister, MW. Technology in Microsurgery. Clin Plast Surg 2026, 53(1), 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Foroutan, A; Phuyal, D; Babb, G; et al. Robotic Horizons in Plastic Surgery: A Look Toward the Future. J Clin Med 2026, 15(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated