BACKGROUND: Transoral techniques for oropharyngeal tumors, such as transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser microsurgery, require new reconstructive considerations. METHODS: Defects from 92 patients undergoing TORS were classified into 4 classes. A reconstruction algorithm was followed. Perioperative outcomes and complications were assessed. Forty-seven patients completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) swallowing questionnaire and a modified Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Quality of Life (VPIQL) questionnaire postoperatively. RESULTS: The most common reconstructions involved velopharyngoplasties with local flaps (39%), local flaps alone (25%), or secondary healing (20%). More advanced defects (class III and IV defects) required regional and free flaps more often. No significant differences were found in MDADI scores or VPIQL scores among the 4 defect classes. Only adjuvant radiotherapy was a predictor of poor swallowing (p = .02). CONCLUSION: The classification system for transoral oropharyngeal defects maps defects into 4 classes and guides the reconstructive thought process.
BACKGROUND: Transoral techniques for oropharyngeal tumors, such as transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser microsurgery, require new reconstructive considerations. METHODS: Defects from 92 patients undergoing TORS were classified into 4 classes. A reconstruction algorithm was followed. Perioperative outcomes and complications were assessed. Forty-seven patients completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) swallowing questionnaire and a modified Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Quality of Life (VPIQL) questionnaire postoperatively. RESULTS: The most common reconstructions involved velopharyngoplasties with local flaps (39%), local flaps alone (25%), or secondary healing (20%). More advanced defects (class III and IV defects) required regional and free flaps more often. No significant differences were found in MDADI scores or VPIQL scores among the 4 defect classes. Only adjuvant radiotherapy was a predictor of poor swallowing (p = .02). CONCLUSION: The classification system for transoral oropharyngeal defects maps defects into 4 classes and guides the reconstructive thought process.
Authors: Meghan T Turner; Mathew Geltzeiler; W Greer Albergotti; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris; Seungwon Kim; Eric W Wang Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2019-06-10
Authors: Vincent L Biron; Daniel A O'Connell; Brittany Barber; Jessica M Clark; Colin Andrews; Caroline C Jeffery; David W J Côté; Jeffrey Harris; Hadi Seikaly Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: G Meccariello; F Montevecchi; G D'Agostino; G Iannella; S Calpona; E Parisi; M Costantini; G Cammaroto; R Gobbi; E Firinu; R Sgarzani; D Nestola; C Bellini; A De Vito; E Amadori; C Vicini Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: Meghan T Turner; Mathew N Geltzeiler; Jad Ramadan; Jessica M Moskovitz; Robert L Ferris; Eric W Wang; Seungwon Kim Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Philippe Gorphe; Anne Auperin; Jean-François Honart; Jean Ton Van; Sophie El Bedoui; François Bidault; Stéphane Temam; Frédéric Kolb; Quentin Qassemyar Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2018-03-25