Value of Microvascular Surgery in Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Participation of Canadian Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in Oral, Lip, and Oropharyngeal Cancer Care

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the participation of Canadian oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) in the various phases of oral, lip, and oropharyngeal cancer care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was conducted to quantify participation in oral, lip, and oropharyngeal cancer care and assess participation ranging from screening for malignancy to active treatment and rehabilitation of those with late-stage disease.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-one surgeons were contacted and 206 (52.7%) responded to the online survey. The survey showed 98.1% of respondents were involved with cancer screening and 97.1% were involved in prevention and early intervention (monitoring and treatment) of premalignant lesions. In addition, 95.1% of respondents participated in diagnosis and staging of tumors. Early-stage cancer was managed surgically by 49.5% of respondents, whereas 11.2% of respondents managed late-stage disease. Management of oral rehabilitation was performed by 79.0% of respondents.

CONCLUSION

OMSs are an integral part of all phases of oral and oropharyngeal cancer care, including primary surgical oncology, in Canada. Although OMSs in Canada participate widely in integral prevention and survivor rehabilitation programs, few members participate in late-stage disease management and regional multidisciplinary care teams.

Outcome of microvascular free flaps in a high-volume training centre

PURPOSE

Microvascular free tissue transfer allows major ablative defects following oncologic surgical and traumatic reasons to be reliably reconstructed in the head and neck region. A retrospective analysis of the microvascular flap procedures which were performed within one year in a high volume training centre was performed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The microvascular free flap procedures of the year 2011 were reviewed and followed up until the 31st December 2012. The type and indication of the reconstructive procedure, operation time, operating team, experience and level of training of the surgeons involved, postoperative IMC (intermediate care unit) and/or ICU (intensive care unit) time, inpatient time, flap revisions, further postoperative complications, preoperative and postoperative radiation of the patients, the placement of dental implants were studied.

RESULTS

From 1st of January 2011 to 31st of December, 2011, the data of 101 patients with 103 microvascular free flap procedures were analysed of which 72% (84 flaps) were harvested by residents. The patients ranged in age from 14 to 89 years (mean age 59 years, 71 males and 40 females). The mean operation time was 591 min with the longest operation times for scapular flaps (744 min) and the shortest operation times for ALT flaps (455 min). Mean inpatient time was 34.2 days with a minimal time for the fibular flaps of 27.2 days and a maximum of 45.7 days for the latissimus dorsi flaps. 24 flaps (23.3%) in total had to be revised with bleeding being the main cause of immediate revisions (41.7% of all revisions). 5 flaps (4.85% of all flaps) were lost despite a revision procedure meaning a successful revision rate in 79.2% of all revisions.

CONCLUSION

Microvascular reconstruction procedures are safe and should be considered as standard procedures for reconstruction of large defects especially in high volume training centres. Intensive flap monitoring and early revisions maximize the flap outcome.

Free flap reconstruction versus non-free flap reconstruction in treating elderly patients with advanced oral cancer

PURPOSE

Our goal was to evaluate whether elderly patients can benefit from free flaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical information from the included patients was reviewed, and these patients were asked to complete the University of Washington Quality of Life, version 4, questionnaire. Comparisons of the different scales between the 2 groups were performed.

RESULTS

The difference in the mouth-opening width before and after surgery did not differ significantly (P = .621) in the patients with and without free flap reconstruction. However, free flap placement tended to preserve the original mouth-opening width. No significant differences were found in recurrence-free survival or disease-specific survival between the 2 groups. The mean quality of life score of the 2 groups was 77.5 ± 10.4 and 72.1 ± 10.8. Significant differences were found in the chewing domain scores between the 2 groups (P = .039). Patients with free flap reconstruction tended to score better in the appearance and taste domains (P = .073 and P = .053, respectively); however, they required longer operative times, and longer postoperative hospital stays and incurred hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Free flap reconstruction did not benefit elderly patients in mouth-opening width or survival analyses; the only quality of life domain that was significantly improved in patients undergoing free flap reconstruction was chewing. Free tissue transfer should be cautiously suggested for elderly patients with advanced oral cancer.