Aslam-Pervez Nawaf, Caldroney Steven J, Isaiah Amal, Lubek Joshua E
Chief Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar;76(3):656-663. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.08.003. Epub 2017 Aug 12.
The submental artery island pedicled flap (SMIF) is an underused alternative for reconstruction of head and neck defects after tumor ablation. The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of reconstructive outcomes based on surgical site and ablative defect volume in patients who underwent reconstruction with the SMIF versus the forearm free flap (FFF).
A retrospective cohort study of all patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal defects reconstructed with the SMIF and a cohort of patients with similar volume defects reconstructed with the FFF were compared for oncologic safety and viability of equivalent reconstructive outcomes. All statistical comparisons were assessed by analysis of variance and Fisher exact test.
Average age was 61.8 years in the SMIF group versus 57.9 years in the FFF group. The most common defect was located in the tongue, with squamous cell carcinoma being the most common pathology identified. Flap volumes were similar (SMIF, 38.79 cm; FFF, 39.77 cm). Significant comparative outcomes identified with SMIF versus FFF reconstruction included shorter anesthesia times (815 vs 1,209 minutes; P < .001), shorter operative times (653 vs 1,031 minutes; P < .001), and less blood loss (223 vs 398 mL; P = .04). Postoperative Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance score increased more for the FFF than for the SMIF group (+0.33 vs + 1.25; P = .0019). Recipient site complication rates were lower for the FFF group (0.17 vs 0.42 per patient) but were not statistically relevant. There were equal rates of recurrence at the local surgical site and no differences in speech and swallowing function. Mean follow-up was 15.5 months.
This is the first study to compare the SMIF with the FFF for reconstruction of oral cavity defects based on ablative volume deficit. The SMIF is a viable surgical option compared with the FFF that can be considered oncologically safe in the N0 neck, allowing for an excellent esthetic reconstruction, with decreased operative time, hospital stay, and donor site morbidity.
颏下动脉岛状蒂皮瓣(SMIF)是肿瘤切除术后头颈部缺损重建中一种未得到充分应用的替代方案。本研究的目的是对接受SMIF重建与前臂游离皮瓣(FFF)重建的患者,基于手术部位和消融缺损体积进行重建效果的比较评估。
对所有采用SMIF重建口腔和口咽缺损的患者进行回顾性队列研究,并与一组采用FFF重建类似体积缺损的患者进行比较,以评估同等重建效果的肿瘤安全性和生存能力。所有统计比较均通过方差分析和Fisher精确检验进行评估。
SMIF组的平均年龄为61.8岁,FFF组为57.9岁。最常见的缺损位于舌部,最常见的病理类型为鳞状细胞癌。皮瓣体积相似(SMIF为38.79cm³,FFF为39.77cm³)。SMIF与FFF重建相比,显著的比较结果包括麻醉时间更短(815分钟对1209分钟;P <.001)、手术时间更短(653分钟对1031分钟;P <.001)和失血量更少(223mL对398mL;P =.04)。术后东部肿瘤协作组(ECOG)的体能状态评分,FFF组的增加幅度大于SMIF组(+0.33对 + 1.25;P =.0019)。FFF组受区并发症发生率较低(每位患者0.17对0.42),但无统计学意义。局部手术部位的复发率相同,言语和吞咽功能无差异。平均随访时间为15.5个月。
这是第一项基于消融体积缺损比较SMIF与FFF用于口腔缺损重建的研究。与FFF相比,SMIF是一种可行的手术选择,在N0颈部可认为肿瘤学上安全,能实现出色的美学重建,同时减少手术时间、住院时间和供区并发症。