Affiliation:
1. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia; Academy of Postgraduate Education under FSBU FSCC of FMBA of Russia
2. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to conduct a comparative analysis and evaluate the functional results and quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer after radical surgery, depending on the reconstruction techniques used and the feasibility of using autografts for the repair of tissue innervation. Material and Methods. From 2014 to 2021a total of 133 patients with oral cavity cancer underwent simultaneous or delayed reconstruction after radical surgery at Clinical Hospital 1 of Sechenov University. All patients were divided into 4 groups: group 1 (n=37, the main group): reconstruction with free flaps “with reinnervation”, group 2 (n=24): reconstruction with free flaps “without reinnervation”, group 3 (n=23): reconstruction with pedicled axial flaps “with innervation”, and group 4 (n=49): reconstruction with pedicled axial flaps “without innervation”. The QLQ-H&N43 questionnaire was taken as the main tool, speech and swallowing functions were assessed by using scales, and sensibility was assessed by the Semmes-Weinstein and Weber tests, as well as by pain and temperature sensation. Results. In the main group, statistically significant best results were achieved in the following main scales of the QLQ-H&N43 questionnaire: total score - Me=21 (Q1-9; Q3-29) (p=0.038); speech -Me=27 (Q1-7; Q3-37) (p=0.05) and body image - Me=22 (Q1-0; Q3-47) (p=0.049). In group 1, significantly better results were obtained in assessing all sensory tests, except for the temperature sensation. In relation to less discomfort on the donor area and greater satisfaction with the cosmetic result, group 1 also gained better scores than other groups. Conclusion. The use of innervated flaps improves the quality of life and patient satisfaction with the treatment results in long-term follow-up.
Publisher
Tomsk Cancer Research Institute
Reference22 articles.
1. Davudov M.M., Harirchi I., Arabkheradmand A., Garajei A., Mirzajani Z., Amiraliyev K., Rustamli N., Zebardast J., Montazeri A. Quality of life in patients with oral cancer treated by different reconstruction methods as measured by the EORTC QLQ-H&N43. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 58(9): 67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.06.027.
2. Rathod S., Livergant J., Klein J., Witterick I., Ringash J. A systematic review of quality of life in head and neck cancer treated with surgery with or without adjuvant treatment. Oral Oncol. 2015; 51(10): 888-900. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.07.002.
3. Reshetov I.V., Zakirova A.A. Comparative analysis of oral cavity organ reconstruction methods with axial and free innervated flaps. Head and neck. Russian Journal. 2022; 10(1): 69-75. (in Russian). doi: 10.25792/HN.2022.10.1.69-75.
4. Li W., Yang Y., Xu Z., Liu F., Cheng Y., Xu L., Sun C. Assessment of quality of life of patients with oral cavity cancer who have had defects reconstructed with free anterolateral thigh perforator flaps. Br J Oral Maxil-lofac Surg. 2013; 51(6): 497-501. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.09.005.
5. Valdez J.A., Brennan M.T. Impact of Oral Cancer on Quality of Life. Dent Clin North Am. 2018; 62(1): 143-54. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2017.09.001.