BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare shoulder function with respect to pain and disability in patients who have undergone nerve sparing neck dissection i.e. selective neck dissection (levels I, II, III) and functional neck dissection as a part of their treatment modality for carcinoma tongue on a follow up of minimum six months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients were selected for this study. 50 patients who had undergone selective neck dissection (levels I, II, III) and 50 who underwent functional neck dissection as a part of their treatment modality for squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue from January 2005 to January 2007 were asked to participate in this study. A standardized questionnaire was used to assess pain and disability. Pain and disability scores were then compared between the two nerve sparing dissections. RESULTS: 100% of the patients in Selective Neck Dissection (SND) (levels I, II, III) group and in Functional Neck Dissection (FND) groups complained of pain. Though there is pain present in both the treatment groups, no significant difference in the pain values was found between FND and SND (levels I, II, III) in any of the pain parameters. Disability was present in both the treatment groups. However patients who have undergone FND had significantly higher severity of disability when compared to SND (levels I, II, III) especially during activities which involve shoulder abduction like dressing, doing heavy household work, hair wash and washing clothes/dishes (5.18, 5.22, 5.5, 4.88 in FND and 2.26, 4.08, 4.58, 2.2 in SND (levels I, II, III) respectively. Disability perceived during other activities like doing heavy household and facial care was 2.08 and 1.84 in both the treatment groups respectively. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: Degree of shoulder morbidity is much higher in patients who have undergone FND as compared to SND (levels I, II, III) as a treatment modality for carcinoma tongue, even though both the treatment options are nerve preserving.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare shoulder function with respect to pain and disability in patients who have undergone nerve sparing neck dissection i.e. selective neck dissection (levels I, II, III) and functional neck dissection as a part of their treatment modality for carcinoma tongue on a follow up of minimum six months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients were selected for this study. 50 patients who had undergone selective neck dissection (levels I, II, III) and 50 who underwent functional neck dissection as a part of their treatment modality for squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue from January 2005 to January 2007 were asked to participate in this study. A standardized questionnaire was used to assess pain and disability. Pain and disability scores were then compared between the two nerve sparing dissections. RESULTS: 100% of the patients in Selective Neck Dissection (SND) (levels I, II, III) group and in Functional Neck Dissection (FND) groups complained of pain. Though there is pain present in both the treatment groups, no significant difference in the pain values was found between FND and SND (levels I, II, III) in any of the pain parameters. Disability was present in both the treatment groups. However patients who have undergone FND had significantly higher severity of disability when compared to SND (levels I, II, III) especially during activities which involve shoulder abduction like dressing, doing heavy household work, hair wash and washing clothes/dishes (5.18, 5.22, 5.5, 4.88 in FND and 2.26, 4.08, 4.58, 2.2 in SND (levels I, II, III) respectively. Disability perceived during other activities like doing heavy household and facial care was 2.08 and 1.84 in both the treatment groups respectively. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: Degree of shoulder morbidity is much higher in patients who have undergone FND as compared to SND (levels I, II, III) as a treatment modality for carcinoma tongue, even though both the treatment options are nerve preserving.
Authors: T P Suurmeijer; D M Doeglas; T Moum; S Briançon; B Krol; R Sanderman; F Guillemin; A Bjelle; W J van den Heuvel Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 9.308