Smeets Maximiliaan, Croonenborghs Tomas-Marijn, Van Dessel Jeroen, Politis Constantinus, Jacobs Reinhilde, Bila Michel
OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Front Oral Health. 2022 Jan 21;2:810288. doi: 10.3389/froh.2021.810288. eCollection 2021.
The objective of this systematic review was to identify the different surgical treatment modalities of severe trismus after head and neck squamous cell cancer treatment.
An electronic literature database search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and OpenGrey to determine articles published up to September 2021. Two observers independently assessed the identified papers for eligibility according to PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were trismus after head and neck squamous cell cancer with consecutive treatment, detailed description of the surgical procedure for trismus release, description of the initial treatment, at least 6 months between initial cancer treatment and trismus release surgery, a minimal follow-up (FU) of 6 months, and availability of full text. The quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A subanalysis of the maximal mouth opening (MMO) was performed using a mixed-effect model.
A total of 8,607 unique articles were screened for eligibility, 69 full texts were reviewed, and 3 studies, with a total of 46 cases, were selected based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three treatment strategies were identified for trismus release (1) free flap reconstruction (FFR), (2) coronoidectomy (CN), and (3) myotomy (MT). There was a clear improvement for all treatment modalities. A quantitative analysis showed a beneficial effect of CN (mean 24.02 ± 15.02 mm) in comparison with FFR (mean 19.88 ± 13.97 mm) and MT (mean 18.38 ± 13.22 mm) ( < 0.01). An increased gain in MMO after trismus release was found if no primary resection was performed ( = 0.014). Two studies included in the analysis had an intermediate risk of bias and one had a low risk of bias.
Currently available reports suggest a low threshold for performing a CN compared with FFR and MT. There is a need for high-quality randomized controlled trials with carefully selected and standardized outcome measures.
本系统评价的目的是确定头颈部鳞状细胞癌治疗后严重牙关紧闭的不同外科治疗方式。
在Medline、Embase、Cochrane、Web of Science和OpenGrey中进行电子文献数据库检索,以确定截至2021年9月发表的文章。两名观察者根据PRISMA指南独立评估所识别的论文是否符合纳入标准。纳入标准为头颈部鳞状细胞癌连续治疗后出现牙关紧闭、牙关紧闭松解手术过程的详细描述、初始治疗的描述、初始癌症治疗与牙关紧闭松解手术之间至少间隔6个月、至少6个月的最短随访期以及全文可获取。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估质量。采用混合效应模型对最大开口度(MMO)进行亚组分析。
共筛选出8607篇独特文章以确定其是否符合纳入标准,对69篇全文进行了评审,并根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准选择了3项研究,共46例。确定了三种牙关紧闭松解治疗策略:(1)游离皮瓣重建(FFR),(2)冠突切除术(CN),(3)肌切开术(MT)。所有治疗方式均有明显改善。定量分析显示,与FFR(平均19.88±13.97mm)和MT(平均18.38±13.22mm)相比,CN(平均24.02±15.02mm)有有益效果(<0.01)。如果未进行原发切除,牙关紧闭松解后MMO增加(=0.014)。分析中纳入的两项研究存在中度偏倚风险,一项存在低度偏倚风险。
现有报告表明,与FFR和MT相比,CN的实施门槛较低。需要进行高质量的随机对照试验,并精心选择和标准化结局指标。