根据有效消融癌症的手术方法对口腔癌患者预后的回顾性分析:摆动法与面罩法

IF 2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Yun-Ho Kim, Jae-Young Yang, Dong-Min Lee, Jae-Yeol Lee, Dae-Seok Hwang, Mi-Heon Ryu, Uk-Kyu Kim
{"title":"根据有效消融癌症的手术方法对口腔癌患者预后的回顾性分析:摆动法与面罩法","authors":"Yun-Ho Kim, Jae-Young Yang, Dong-Min Lee, Jae-Yeol Lee, Dae-Seok Hwang, Mi-Heon Ryu, Uk-Kyu Kim","doi":"10.1186/s40902-024-00426-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the surgical treatment of oral cancer, it is sometimes necessary to expand intraoral access within the oral cavity. The “swing approach” that involves lip splitting of the mandible and temporary mandibular osteotomy and the “visor approach” that does not split the lower lip and mandible are mainly used. This study analyzed postoperative outcomes such as complications, recurrence rate, and survival rate by these two approaches. The goal of this study is to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients using these two approaches, to propose effective perioperative management for oral cancer surgery, and to compare the prognosis of oral cancer patients. From 2005 to 2020, 29 patients who underwent surgery at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Pusan National University Dental Hospital for oral cancer lesions occurred in the mandible, floor of mouth, and tongue were selected for the study. Based on the surgical approach used, a chart review was conducted on various prognostic clinical factors such as the patients’ sex and age, primary site, TNM stage, histopathologic grade, recurrence and metastasis, postoperative survival rate, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy, satisfaction with aesthetics/function/swallowing, length of hospital stay, tracheostomy and its duration, and neck dissection and its type. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) through Fisher’s exact t-test. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of clinical and pathological findings, such as survival rate, the need for adjuvant therapies, and the local recurrence rate. Although better outcomes were observed in terms of function, aesthetics, and postoperative complications in the group with visor approach, there was still no statistically significant difference between two groups. However, the duration of hospital stay was shorter in the visor approach group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical prognostic factors between the swing approach and the visor approach. Therefore, when choosing between the two approaches for the ablation of oral cancer, it is considered to select the surgical priority approach that can be easy access based on the size and location of the lesion. The visor approach had advantages of aesthetics and healing period.","PeriodicalId":18357,"journal":{"name":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective analysis on prognosis of oral cancer patients according to surgical approaches for effective cancer ablation: swing approach versus visor approach\",\"authors\":\"Yun-Ho Kim, Jae-Young Yang, Dong-Min Lee, Jae-Yeol Lee, Dae-Seok Hwang, Mi-Heon Ryu, Uk-Kyu Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40902-024-00426-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the surgical treatment of oral cancer, it is sometimes necessary to expand intraoral access within the oral cavity. The “swing approach” that involves lip splitting of the mandible and temporary mandibular osteotomy and the “visor approach” that does not split the lower lip and mandible are mainly used. This study analyzed postoperative outcomes such as complications, recurrence rate, and survival rate by these two approaches. The goal of this study is to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients using these two approaches, to propose effective perioperative management for oral cancer surgery, and to compare the prognosis of oral cancer patients. From 2005 to 2020, 29 patients who underwent surgery at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Pusan National University Dental Hospital for oral cancer lesions occurred in the mandible, floor of mouth, and tongue were selected for the study. Based on the surgical approach used, a chart review was conducted on various prognostic clinical factors such as the patients’ sex and age, primary site, TNM stage, histopathologic grade, recurrence and metastasis, postoperative survival rate, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy, satisfaction with aesthetics/function/swallowing, length of hospital stay, tracheostomy and its duration, and neck dissection and its type. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) through Fisher’s exact t-test. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of clinical and pathological findings, such as survival rate, the need for adjuvant therapies, and the local recurrence rate. Although better outcomes were observed in terms of function, aesthetics, and postoperative complications in the group with visor approach, there was still no statistically significant difference between two groups. However, the duration of hospital stay was shorter in the visor approach group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical prognostic factors between the swing approach and the visor approach. Therefore, when choosing between the two approaches for the ablation of oral cancer, it is considered to select the surgical priority approach that can be easy access based on the size and location of the lesion. The visor approach had advantages of aesthetics and healing period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00426-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00426-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在口腔癌的手术治疗中,有时需要在口腔内扩大口腔内入路。目前主要采用的是下颌骨唇裂和临时下颌骨截骨的 "摆动法 "和不切开下唇和下颌骨的 "面罩法"。本研究分析了这两种方法的术后效果,如并发症、复发率和存活率。本研究的目的是评估使用这两种方法的患者的手术效果,为口腔癌手术提出有效的围手术期管理建议,并比较口腔癌患者的预后。研究选取了 2005 年至 2020 年期间在釜山大学牙科医院口腔颌面外科接受手术治疗的 29 名下颌骨、口底和舌头口腔癌病变患者。根据所采用的手术方法,对患者的性别和年龄、原发部位、TNM 分期、组织病理学分级、复发和转移、术后生存率、辅助化疗和放疗、对美观/功能/吞咽的满意度、住院时间、气管造口术及其持续时间、颈部切除术及其类型等各种预后临床因素进行了病历回顾。统计分析使用 SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) 通过费雪精确 t 检验进行。两组患者的临床和病理结果,如存活率、辅助治疗需求和局部复发率,在统计学上无明显差异。虽然在功能、美观度和术后并发症方面,面罩法组的疗效更好,但两组之间的差异仍无统计学意义。不过,遮盖器入路组的住院时间较短。在临床预后因素方面,摇摆入路法和遮盖器入路法的差异无统计学意义。因此,在选择两种方法消融口腔癌时,应根据病灶的大小和位置,优先选择易于进入的手术方法。遮盖器方法在美观和愈合期方面具有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrospective analysis on prognosis of oral cancer patients according to surgical approaches for effective cancer ablation: swing approach versus visor approach
For the surgical treatment of oral cancer, it is sometimes necessary to expand intraoral access within the oral cavity. The “swing approach” that involves lip splitting of the mandible and temporary mandibular osteotomy and the “visor approach” that does not split the lower lip and mandible are mainly used. This study analyzed postoperative outcomes such as complications, recurrence rate, and survival rate by these two approaches. The goal of this study is to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients using these two approaches, to propose effective perioperative management for oral cancer surgery, and to compare the prognosis of oral cancer patients. From 2005 to 2020, 29 patients who underwent surgery at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Pusan National University Dental Hospital for oral cancer lesions occurred in the mandible, floor of mouth, and tongue were selected for the study. Based on the surgical approach used, a chart review was conducted on various prognostic clinical factors such as the patients’ sex and age, primary site, TNM stage, histopathologic grade, recurrence and metastasis, postoperative survival rate, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy, satisfaction with aesthetics/function/swallowing, length of hospital stay, tracheostomy and its duration, and neck dissection and its type. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) through Fisher’s exact t-test. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of clinical and pathological findings, such as survival rate, the need for adjuvant therapies, and the local recurrence rate. Although better outcomes were observed in terms of function, aesthetics, and postoperative complications in the group with visor approach, there was still no statistically significant difference between two groups. However, the duration of hospital stay was shorter in the visor approach group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical prognostic factors between the swing approach and the visor approach. Therefore, when choosing between the two approaches for the ablation of oral cancer, it is considered to select the surgical priority approach that can be easy access based on the size and location of the lesion. The visor approach had advantages of aesthetics and healing period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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