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

Q3 Medicine
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 ,&nbsp;Matthew N. Harmon MD ,&nbsp;Vanessa K. Yu BS ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Matthew N. Harmon MD ,&nbsp;Vanessa K. Yu BS ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

颈部剥离的拉皮切口入路有几个优点,包括改善美观,提高患者满意度,降低发病率。该入路以前曾使用机器人或内窥镜器械进行过描述,但使用标准器械的临床结果尚未报道。本研究的目的是确定是否可以在没有内窥镜或机器人辅助的情况下进行颈部剥离的整容切口入路,并获得更好的肿瘤和美容效果。这是一项在国家综合癌症中心进行的为期4年的回顾性队列研究。总共104名受试者接受了113例肿瘤颈部清扫术,其中35例采用拉皮方法。主要结局包括阴性切缘率、复发率、神经无力发生率和淋巴水肿发生率。队列的平均年龄为60.1±12.7岁,72.6%为男性。平均随访23.1±19.1个月(P = 0.21)。104例(92.9%)患者最终病理阴性,两种方法无差异(分别为88.2%和94.9%,P = 0.24)。在研究结论时,34名受试者(97.1%)在整容组中没有疾病的证据。两组间下颌边缘神经无力(P = 0.10)和肩关节无力(P = 0.59)均无差异。术后淋巴水肿发生率无差异(拉皮组38.2% vs标准切口组29.2%,P = 0.35)。与标准切口入路相比,使用标准器械进行颈部剥离的拉皮入路在没有机器人或内窥镜辅助的情况下获得了可接受的临床和肿瘤学结果,并带来了改善外观的额外好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
43 days
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.
×
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