Zheng W H, Li C, Zhou Y Q, Ning Y D, Shui C Y, Cai Y C, Sun R H, Jiang J, Wang X, He T Q, Chen X L, Liu W, Zhang Y Y, Qin G
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University,Luzhou 646200, Sichuan Province, China Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Sichuan Cancer Research Institute, Sichuan Cancer Prevention and Cure Center, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610041, China.
Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Sichuan Cancer Research Institute, Sichuan Cancer Prevention and Cure Center, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610041, China.
Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021 Nov 7;56(11):1150-1157. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20210719-00468.
To compare the recovery and quality of life of patients with oral and oropharyngeal tumors treated with three kinds of free soft tissue flaps. The clinical data of 103 patients, including 66 males and 37 females, aged 26-74 years, who underwent primary repair of defects after resection of oral and oropharyngeal tumors in Sichuan Tumor Hospital from July 2014 to August 2020 were analyzed. Anterolateral thigh flap (ALTF) was used in 43 patients, radial forearm free flap (RFFF) in 45 patients, and lateral arm free flap (LAFF) in 15 patients. Postoperative qualities of life of patients were evaluated by the university of Washington quality of life questionnaire and oral health impact scale (HIP-14 Chinese edition). SPSS 23.0 software was used for statistical analysis. The T staging of RFFF or LAFF group was significantly lower than that of ALTF group (<0.05). There was no significant difference in mean flap areas between ALTF group ((55.87±27.38) cm) and LAFF group ((49.93±19.44) cm), while RFFF group had smaller mean flap area ((33.18±6.05) cm) than ALTF group (=5.311, <0.001) and LAFF group (=3.284, =0.005). In terms of oral functions including swallowing, mastication, taste and spitmouth, there were no significant differences between LAFF group and RFFF group (>0.05), but both groups had better oral functions than ALTF group (<0.05). There was no significant difference in appearance scores between LAFF group (75(75, 75)) and ALTF group (75(75,75) vs.75(75,75),=-1.532, =0.126), and both groups had higher scores than RFFF group (50(50, 75), values were -3.447 and -3.005 respectively, <0.05). RFFF group had higher speech score (100(67, 100)) than LAFF group (67(50, 76),=-2.480, <0.05) and ALTF group (67(33, 67),=-5.414, <0.05). ALTF group had lower mean score of quality of life than RFFF group [72(56,77) vs.79(69, 89),=-3.070, <0.05), but there was no statistical difference in the mean scores of qualities of life between ALTF group and LAFF group (=1.754, =0.079). According to the evaluation of oral health impact scale (HIP-14 Chinese version) 1 year after surgery, individual item scores and the average score of all items in ALTF group were lower than those in RFFF and LAFF groups (<0.05), with no significant difference between RFFF group and LAFF group (>0.05). RFFF has unique advantages for small tissue defects, while ALTF is suitable for large tissue defects, such as buccal penetrating defect, whole tongue and near whole tongue defect, and LAFF is a compromise choice between ALTF and RFFF. ALTF is inferior to RFFF and LAFF in oral functional reconstruction, including swallowing, chewing, taste and spittle. ALTF and LAFF are superior to RFFF in postoperative appearance.
比较三种游离软组织瓣修复口腔及口咽肿瘤患者后的恢复情况及生活质量。分析2014年7月至2020年8月在四川省肿瘤医院接受口腔及口咽肿瘤切除术后一期缺损修复的103例患者的临床资料,其中男性66例,女性37例,年龄26 - 74岁。43例患者采用股前外侧皮瓣(ALTF),45例患者采用桡侧前臂游离皮瓣(RFFF),15例患者采用上臂外侧游离皮瓣(LAFF)。采用华盛顿大学生活质量问卷和口腔健康影响量表(HIP - 14中文版)对患者术后生活质量进行评估。使用SPSS 23.0软件进行统计分析。RFFF组或LAFF组的T分期显著低于ALTF组(<0.05)。ALTF组((55.87±27.38) cm)与LAFF组((49.93±19.44) cm)的平均皮瓣面积无显著差异,而RFFF组的平均皮瓣面积((33.18±6.05) cm)小于ALTF组(=5.311,<0.001)和LAFF组(=3.284,=0.005)。在吞咽、咀嚼、味觉和吐口水等口腔功能方面,LAFF组与RFFF组无显著差异(>0.05),但两组的口腔功能均优于ALTF组(<0.05)。LAFF组(75(75, 75))与ALTF组(75(75,75) vs.75(75,75),=-1.532,=0.126)的外观评分无显著差异,且两组评分均高于RFFF组(50(50, 75),值分别为-3.447和-3.005,<0.05)。RFFF组的语音评分(100(67, 100))高于LAFF组(67(50, 76),=-2.480,<0.05)和ALTF组(67(33, 67),=-5.414,<0.05)。ALTF组的生活质量平均评分低于RFFF组[72(56,77) vs.79(69, 89),=-3.070,<0.05],但ALTF组与LAFF组的生活质量平均评分无统计学差异(=1.754,=0.079)。根据术后1年口腔健康影响量表(HIP - 14中文版)评估,ALTF组各单项评分及所有项目的平均评分均低于RFFF组和LAFF组(<0.05),RFFF组与LAFF组无显著差异(>0.05)。RFFF对小组织缺损具有独特优势,而ALTF适用于大组织缺损,如颊部贯通性缺损、全舌及近全舌缺损,LAFF是ALTF和RFFF之间的折衷选择。在包括吞咽、咀嚼、味觉和唾液分泌的口腔功能重建方面,ALTF不如RFFF和LAFF。ALTF和LAFF在术后外观方面优于RFFF。