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

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Head and Neck-Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1002/hed.28036
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Single Stage Reconstruction of Composite Rhinectomy Defects Using Osteocutaneous Radial Forearm Free Flap. Decompression Obturator Prostheses in the Treatment of Cystic Odontogenic Lesions: A Case Series and Review of the Literature. Airway Management in Microvascular Reconstruction of the Head and Neck: Current Practice Patterns. A Novel Training Model to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Fine-Needle Aspiration. Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes in Two Lip-Splitting Approaches for Buccal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Ablation.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1