			Home About us Contact

Mandibular Resection (mandibular + resection)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Longitudinal health-related quality of life after mandibular resection for oral cancer: a comparison between rim and segment,

HEAD & NECK: JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES & SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, Issue 1 2004
Simon N. Rogers FDS
Abstract Background. Mandibular resection for oral cancer is often necessary to achieve an adequate margin of tumor clearance. Segmental mandibulectomy has been associated with a poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL), particularly before composite free tissue transfer to reconstruct the defect. Little is published in the literature contrasting the subjective deficit of segmental compared with rim resection. The aim of this study was to use a validated head and neck HRQOL questionnaire to compare rim and segmental mandibular resection in patients having primary surgery for oral cancer. Method. There were 224 consecutive patients between 1995 and 1999 who were treated by primary surgery for oral squamous cell carcinoma. One hundred twenty-tree had no mandibular resection, 44 had a rim resection, and 57 had a segmental resection. The University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire (UW-QOL) was adminstered before treatment, at 6 months, 12 months and after 18 months. Results. Preoperatively, patients undergoing segmental resection reported significantly more pain, chewing problems, and a lower composite UW-QOL score. Postperatively, the segment group tended to score worse at all time points, particularly in appearance, swallowing, recreation, and chewing; however, the difference between rim and segment was only seen in smaller resections without adjuvant radiotherapy. Little difference was seen between rim or segment for tumors <4 cm with radiotherapy and between rim and segments for tumors >4cm. Conclusion: After segmental mandibulectomy and reconstruction using composite free tissue transfer, the UW-QOL scores were relatively good. The only 2 difference between rim and segments was noted in the small resections without radiotherapy, and some of this was reflected in differences at baseline. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck26: 54,62, 2004. [source]

Rim versus sagittal mandibulectomy for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma: Two types of mandibular preservation

HEAD & NECK: JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES & SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, Issue 12 2003
Mario Fernando Muñoz Guerra MD
Abstract Background. The role of conservative mandibulectomy for patients with bone invasion from squamous cell carcinoma remains poorly defined. However, marginal mandibular resection is biomechanically secure in its design while maintaining the mandibular continuity. This procedure has proven to be a successful method of treating squamous cell carcinoma with limited mandibular involvement. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to analyze our results after the use of a marginal technique for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancer and to compare two types of mandibular conservative procedures: rim resection versus sagittal inner mandibulectomy. Methods. A retrospective review of a cohort of 50 patients (global group) who underwent mandibular conservative resection for previously untreated squamous cell carcinoma was performed. Two subgroups were considered: rim group (n = 37) and sagittal group (n = 13). Clinical evaluation and preoperative radiologic studies were the means used to evaluate bony invasion and to decide on the extent of mandibulectomy. The treatment outcome after these two types of mandibular resection was calculated and compared using analysis by the Pearson ,2 test, logistic regression model for multivariate analysis, and the Kaplan-Meier method to determine survival. Results. In the sagittal group, specimens from 2 patients (11.7%) demonstrated tumor invasion on decalcified histologic examination, whereas the rim group showed 11 cases (29.7%) with bone invasion. Local recurrence was observed in the follow-up of 10 patients. No statistical relationship was found between the presence of histologic bone invasion and the risk of local recurrence. The size of bone resection >4 cm (p = .002) and tumor invasion of surgical margins (p = .039) were found to be associated with increased local recurrence rates. In multivariate analysis, lymph node affectation significantly correlated with histologic mandibular involvement (p = .02). In the global group, the 5-year observed survival rate was 56.97%. Overall survival and rate of recurrence were comparable in both groups. In the global group, tumor infiltration beyond the surgical margin was statistically related with poor survival (p = .01). Conclusions. Analysis of this series disclosed that marginal mandibulectomy is effective in the control of squamous cell carcinomas that are close to or involving the mandible. In carefully selected patients, sagittal bone resection seems to be as appropriate as rim resection in the local control of these tumors. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head and Neck 25: 000,000, 2003 [source]

Rehabilitation by means of osseointegrated implants in oral cancer patients with about four to six years follow-up

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 3 2006
J. SEKINE
summary, This paper describes the reconstruction of mandibular defects in four oral cancer patients using iliac crest bone grafts and osseointegrated implants. In three patients, reconstructive surgery using a reconstruction plate and free forearm skin flap was performed following tumour and segmental mandibular resection. After 7,9 months, mandibular reconstruction with a free iliac bone graft was carried out. In one patient, reconstructive surgery was performed with vascularized iliac bone grafting with an anterolateral thigh flap at the same time as the tumour resection. Fixtures were placed in the transplanted bone, and abutments were connected 6,9 months later together with vestibuloplasty. Gingival grafts were used to replace the skin flap around abutments. All implants survived throughout the approximately 4,6 years observation time. Marginal bone loss of the graft was originally several millimetres but less than 1·5 mm. Bone loss as well as management of peri-implant soft tissue was also discussed. [source]