Benjamin T. Ostrander MD, MSE , Matthew N. Harmon MD , Vanessa K. Yu BS , Joseph Califano MD
{"title":"在没有内窥镜或机器人辅助的情况下,颈部剥离的拉皮切口入路的结果","authors":"Benjamin T. Ostrander MD, MSE , Matthew N. Harmon MD , Vanessa K. Yu BS , Joseph Califano MD","doi":"10.1016/j.otot.2023.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The facelift incisional approach to neck dissection offers several advantages including improved cosmesis, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased morbidity. This approach has been previously described using robotic or endoscopic instrumentation, but the clinical outcomes of this approach using standard instrumentation have not been reported. The objective of this study was to determine if the facelift incisional approach to neck dissection can be performed without endoscopic or robotic assistance and achieve improved oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study over 4 years at a national comprehensive cancer center. A total of 104 subjects received 113 oncologic neck dissections, of which 35 were performed using a facelift approach. Primary outcomes included rate of negative margins, recurrence, incidence of nerve weakness, and incidence of lymphedema. The mean age of the cohort was 60.1 ± 12.7 years and 72.6% were male. Mean follow up was 23.1 ± 19.1 months (<em>P =</em> 0.21). The 104 subjects (92.9%) had negative margins on final pathology, with no difference between approaches (88.2% vs 94.9% respectively, <em>P =</em> 0.24). Thirty-four subjects (97.1%) in the facelift group had no evidence of disease at study conclusion. There was no difference in marginal mandibular nerve weakness (<em>P =</em> 0.10) nor shoulder weakness (<em>P =</em> 0.59) between groups. There was no difference between postoperative lymphedema (38.2% vs 29.2% for the facelift vs standard incision groups, <em>P =</em> 0.35). A facelift approach to neck dissection using standard instrumentation without robotic or endoscopic assistance achieves acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes compared to the standard incisional approach with an additional benefit of improved cosmesis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39814,"journal":{"name":"Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","volume":"34 3","pages":"Pages e42-e50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104318102300012X/pdfft?md5=6353420982dabad2bd02b14cf83af03d&pid=1-s2.0-S104318102300012X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of the facelift incisional approach to neck dissection without endoscopic or robotic assistance\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin T. Ostrander MD, MSE , Matthew N. Harmon MD , Vanessa K. Yu BS , Joseph Califano MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.otot.2023.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The facelift incisional approach to neck dissection offers several advantages including improved cosmesis, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased morbidity. This approach has been previously described using robotic or endoscopic instrumentation, but the clinical outcomes of this approach using standard instrumentation have not been reported. The objective of this study was to determine if the facelift incisional approach to neck dissection can be performed without endoscopic or robotic assistance and achieve improved oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study over 4 years at a national comprehensive cancer center. A total of 104 subjects received 113 oncologic neck dissections, of which 35 were performed using a facelift approach. Primary outcomes included rate of negative margins, recurrence, incidence of nerve weakness, and incidence of lymphedema. The mean age of the cohort was 60.1 ± 12.7 years and 72.6% were male. Mean follow up was 23.1 ± 19.1 months (<em>P =</em> 0.21). The 104 subjects (92.9%) had negative margins on final pathology, with no difference between approaches (88.2% vs 94.9% respectively, <em>P =</em> 0.24). Thirty-four subjects (97.1%) in the facelift group had no evidence of disease at study conclusion. There was no difference in marginal mandibular nerve weakness (<em>P =</em> 0.10) nor shoulder weakness (<em>P =</em> 0.59) between groups. There was no difference between postoperative lymphedema (38.2% vs 29.2% for the facelift vs standard incision groups, <em>P =</em> 0.35). A facelift approach to neck dissection using standard instrumentation without robotic or endoscopic assistance achieves acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes compared to the standard incisional approach with an additional benefit of improved cosmesis.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages e42-e50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104318102300012X/pdfft?md5=6353420982dabad2bd02b14cf83af03d&pid=1-s2.0-S104318102300012X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104318102300012X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104318102300012X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Outcomes of the facelift incisional approach to neck dissection without endoscopic or robotic assistance
The facelift incisional approach to neck dissection offers several advantages including improved cosmesis, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased morbidity. This approach has been previously described using robotic or endoscopic instrumentation, but the clinical outcomes of this approach using standard instrumentation have not been reported. The objective of this study was to determine if the facelift incisional approach to neck dissection can be performed without endoscopic or robotic assistance and achieve improved oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study over 4 years at a national comprehensive cancer center. A total of 104 subjects received 113 oncologic neck dissections, of which 35 were performed using a facelift approach. Primary outcomes included rate of negative margins, recurrence, incidence of nerve weakness, and incidence of lymphedema. The mean age of the cohort was 60.1 ± 12.7 years and 72.6% were male. Mean follow up was 23.1 ± 19.1 months (P = 0.21). The 104 subjects (92.9%) had negative margins on final pathology, with no difference between approaches (88.2% vs 94.9% respectively, P = 0.24). Thirty-four subjects (97.1%) in the facelift group had no evidence of disease at study conclusion. There was no difference in marginal mandibular nerve weakness (P = 0.10) nor shoulder weakness (P = 0.59) between groups. There was no difference between postoperative lymphedema (38.2% vs 29.2% for the facelift vs standard incision groups, P = 0.35). A facelift approach to neck dissection using standard instrumentation without robotic or endoscopic assistance achieves acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes compared to the standard incisional approach with an additional benefit of improved cosmesis.
期刊介绍:
This large-size, atlas-format journal presents detailed illustrations of new surgical procedures and techniques in otology, rhinology, laryngology, reconstructive head and neck surgery, and facial plastic surgery. Feature articles in each issue are related to a central theme by anatomic area or disease process. The journal will also often contain articles on complications, diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation. New techniques that are non-operative are also featured.