Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes in Two Lip-Splitting Approaches for Buccal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Ablation.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Maged Ali Al-Aroomi, Ye Liang, Jie Chen, Yiheng Feng, Liu Pei-Xuan, Canhua Jiang
{"title":"Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes in Two Lip-Splitting Approaches for Buccal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Ablation.","authors":"Maged Ali Al-Aroomi, Ye Liang, Jie Chen, Yiheng Feng, Liu Pei-Xuan, Canhua Jiang","doi":"10.1002/hed.28036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The choice of surgical access for resection and reconstruction of buccal squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) with the lip-splitting incision is controversial. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of midline lip split with lazy-S incision (MLSI) against the lateral lip-splitting incision (LLSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted on 41 patients with primary BSCC who underwent resection and reconstruction using MLSI approach (n = 19) and LLSI approach (n = 22) between 2022 and 2024. Functional outcomes, including skin sensitivity testing, oral competency, lip movement, cold perception, and other relevant measures, were evaluated with appropriate scales. Functional satisfaction and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the patients in either group demonstrated differences in sensation to light touch from baseline at 6 months postoperatively. Patients with MLSI approach reported higher lip function satisfaction (p = 0.037), and no patients in either group reported drooling. Besides, groove formation was significantly more common in the LLSI compared to the MLSI groups (50% vs. 15.8%, respectively; p = 0.046). A statistically significant difference was also observed in the self-assessment of mouth-opening movement among MLSI patients (p = 0.041). No significant differences were found in the mean POSAS scores, except that irregularity and surface area parameters were better in the MLSI group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Objective sensation deficits are reversible and do not impact long-term daily activities. The MLSI approach provides better postoperative outcomes and low disfigurement perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":55072,"journal":{"name":"Head and Neck-Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head and Neck-Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.28036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The choice of surgical access for resection and reconstruction of buccal squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC) with the lip-splitting incision is controversial. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of midline lip split with lazy-S incision (MLSI) against the lateral lip-splitting incision (LLSI).

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 41 patients with primary BSCC who underwent resection and reconstruction using MLSI approach (n = 19) and LLSI approach (n = 22) between 2022 and 2024. Functional outcomes, including skin sensitivity testing, oral competency, lip movement, cold perception, and other relevant measures, were evaluated with appropriate scales. Functional satisfaction and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were analyzed.

Results: None of the patients in either group demonstrated differences in sensation to light touch from baseline at 6 months postoperatively. Patients with MLSI approach reported higher lip function satisfaction (p = 0.037), and no patients in either group reported drooling. Besides, groove formation was significantly more common in the LLSI compared to the MLSI groups (50% vs. 15.8%, respectively; p = 0.046). A statistically significant difference was also observed in the self-assessment of mouth-opening movement among MLSI patients (p = 0.041). No significant differences were found in the mean POSAS scores, except that irregularity and surface area parameters were better in the MLSI group.

Conclusions: Objective sensation deficits are reversible and do not impact long-term daily activities. The MLSI approach provides better postoperative outcomes and low disfigurement perception.

两种唇裂入路治疗口腔鳞状细胞癌的术后疗效比较。
目的:唇裂切口颊鳞状细胞癌(BSCC)切除重建手术入路的选择存在争议。因此,本研究旨在评价lazy-S型中线唇裂切口(MLSI)与外侧唇裂切口(LLSI)的临床和功能效果。方法:回顾性分析2022 - 2024年间41例采用MLSI入路(n = 19)和LLSI入路(n = 22)行原发性BSCC切除重建的患者。功能结果,包括皮肤敏感性测试、口语能力、嘴唇运动、冷感知和其他相关措施,用适当的量表进行评估。分析功能满意度和患者与观察者疤痕评定量表(POSAS)。结果:术后6个月,两组患者对轻触的感觉与基线均无差异。采用MLSI入路的患者唇部功能满意度较高(p = 0.037),两组均无患者出现流口水。此外,与MLSI组相比,LLSI组的沟槽形成明显更常见(分别为50%和15.8%;p = 0.046)。MLSI患者的开口运动自我评估也有统计学差异(p = 0.041)。除了不规则性和表面积参数在MLSI组更好外,平均POSAS评分无显著差异。结论:客观感觉缺陷是可逆的,不影响长期的日常活动。MLSI入路提供了更好的术后效果和较低的毁容感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
278
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Head & Neck is an international multidisciplinary publication of original contributions concerning the diagnosis and management of diseases of the head and neck. This area involves the overlapping interests and expertise of several surgical and medical specialties, including general surgery, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, oral surgery, dermatology, ophthalmology, pathology, radiotherapy, medical oncology, and the corresponding basic sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信