COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF SUBMENTAL ISLET FLAP AND RADIAL FOREARM FREE FLAP FOR TONGUE RECONSTRUCTION AFTER HEMIGLOSSECTOMY (48-53)

Архив в PDF формате
Дата публикации статьи в журнале: 2019/10/11
Название журнала: Восточно Европейский Научный Журнал, Выпуск: 49, Том: 1, Страницы в выпуске: 48-54
Автор: Kravets O.V.
Kyiv, National Cancer Institute, Head and Neck Oncology Department, Candidate of Medical Science
Автор: Cherniienko V.V.
Kyiv, National Cancer Institute, Head and Neck Oncology Department,
Автор: Burtyn O.V.
Kyiv, National Cancer Institute, Head and Neck Oncology Department,
Анотация: The paper presents a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the use of local submental island flap (SIF) and radial forearm free flap (RFFF) to replace hemiglossectomy defects in cancer patients. It has been shown that RFFF remains the first option of choice for tongue reconstruction after hemiglossectomy. Although the use of RFFF to replace hemiglossectomy defects significantly improves the functional outcome and the quality of life of patients, it can increase the duration of surgery and the incidence of complications in the donor site compared with the use of SIF. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of inpatient treatment, incidence of complications after flap transplantation, complications in the recipient area in patients who underwent surgery to replace hemiglossectomy defects with SIF and RFFF. The 5-year overall and 5-year relapse-free survival rates of patients who underwent surgery to replace hemiglossectomy defects with SIF and RFFF were comparable, which indicates the oncological safety of using local SIF
Ключевые слова: hemiglossectomy defects   submental island flap   radial forearm free flap  
Данные для цитирования: Kravets O.V. , Cherniienko V.V. , Burtyn O.V. . COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF SUBMENTAL ISLET FLAP AND RADIAL FOREARM FREE FLAP FOR TONGUE RECONSTRUCTION AFTER HEMIGLOSSECTOMY (48-53). Восточно Европейский Научный Журнал. Медицинские науки. 2019/10/11; 49(1):48-54.

Список литературы: 1. Cancer in Ukraine, 2016–2017. Incidence, mortality, indicators of the oncological service. Bull Nat Cancer Reg of Ukraine 2018; (19): 136. 2. D'Cruz AK, Vaish R, Dhar H. Oral cancer: Current status. Oral Oncol. 2018 Dec; 87: 64-9. 3. Lam L, Samman N. Speech and swallowing following tongue cancer surgery and free flap reconstruction – A systematic review. Oral Oncol 2013; 49 (6): 507–24. 4. Bokhari WA, Wang SJ. Tongue reconstruction: recent advances. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;15: 202–7. 5. Tarsitano A, Vietti MV, Cipriani R, Marchetti C. Functional results of microvascular reconstruction after hemiglossectomy: free anterolateral thigh flap versus free forearm flap. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2013; 33(6): 374-9. 6. Yuan Y, Zhang P, He W, Li W. Comparison of oral function: free anterolateral thigh perforator flaps versus vascularized free forearm flap for reconstruction in patients undergoing glossectomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul; 74(7): 1500.e1-6. 7. Zhang PP, Meng L, Shen J, Liu H, Zhang J, Xiang X, Yan YB. Free radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction of hemiglossectomy defects: A comparison of quality of life. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018 Dec; 46(12): 215763. 8. Patel UA, Hartig GK, Hanasono MM, Lin DT, Richmon JD. Locoregional flaps for oral cavity reconstruction: a review of modern options. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Aug; 157(2): 201- 9. 9. R. Mahieu, G. Colletti, P. Bonomo, G. Parrinello, A. Iavarone, G. Dolivet, A. Deganello. Head and neck reconstruction with pedicled flaps in the free flap era. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016 Dec; 36(6): 459–68. 10. Martin D, Pascal JF, Baudet J, Mondie JM, Farhat JB, Athoum A, Le Gaillard P, Peri G. The submental island flap: a new donor site: anatomy and clinical applications as a free or pedicled flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 92(5): 867-73. 11. Sebastian P, Thomas S, Varghese BT, Iype EM, Balagopal PG, Mathew PC. The submental island flap for reconstruction of intraoral defects in oral cancer patients. Oral Oncol 2008; 44(11): 1014-8. 12. Paydarfar JA, Patel UA. Submental island pedicled flap vs radial forearm free flap for oral reconstruction: Comparison of outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 137: 82–7. 13. Sittitrai P, Srivanitchapoom C, Reunmakkaew D, Yata K. Submental island flap reconstruction in oral cavity cancer patients with level I lymph node metastasis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55: 251–5. 14. Forner D, Phillips T, Rigby M, R. Hart, M. Taylor, J. Trites Submental island flap reconstruction reduces cost in oral cancer reconstruction compared to radial forearm free flap reconstruction: a case series and cost analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 45: 11. УДК 616.89-008; 811.161.11 15. Sittitrai P, Reunmakkaew D, Srivanitchapoom C. Submental island flap versus radial forearm free flap for oral tongue reconstruction: a comparison of complications and functional outcomes. J Laryngol Otol 2019; 133(5): 413-8. 16. Yun T.K, Yoon E.S, Ahn D.S, Park S.H, Lee B.I, Kim H.S, You H.J. Stabilizing morbidity and predicting the aesthetic results of radial forearm free flap donor sites. Arch. Plast. Surg 2015; 42: 769–75.