Won Shik Kim1, Jae Hong Park2, Hyung Kwon Byeon1, Jae Won Chang1, Myung Jin Ban1, Yoon Woo Koh3, Eun Chang Choi1. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Cheonan, Korea. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ywkohent@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Free-flap reconstruction via a retroauricular approach (RRA) after robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) could have cosmetic benefits. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of free-flap reconstruction via a RRA and via a transcervical approach in head and neck cancer. METHODS: For this matched case-control study, 50 patients with head and neck cancer requiring free-flap reconstruction were divided into two groups: those reconstructed via a RRA group and those reconstructed via a transcervical approach (RTA group). The total operation time for free-flap reconstruction, the flap survival rate, the length of the hospital stay, the complications, and the scar satisfaction scores were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The RRA group comprised 25 patients, and the RTA group had 25 patients. The mean operation time for reconstruction was 288 ± 77 min in the RRA group and 250 ± 98 min in the RTA group (p = 0.132). Flap failure occurred for two patients in the RRA group (8 %) and for one patient in the RTA group (4 %) (p = 1.000). The mean hospital stay was 21 ± 18 days in the RRA group and 23 ± 14 days in the RTA group (p = 0.669). The complications were comparable between the two groups. However, the overall scar satisfaction was significantly higher in the RRA group (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with head and neck cancer, RRA has better cosmetic outcomes than RTA. The RRA approach could be used for select patients who undergo RAND and prefer to avoid a visible anterior neck scar.
BACKGROUND: Free-flap reconstruction via a retroauricular approach (RRA) after robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) could have cosmetic benefits. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of free-flap reconstruction via a RRA and via a transcervical approach in head and neck cancer. METHODS: For this matched case-control study, 50 patients with head and neck cancer requiring free-flap reconstruction were divided into two groups: those reconstructed via a RRA group and those reconstructed via a transcervical approach (RTA group). The total operation time for free-flap reconstruction, the flap survival rate, the length of the hospital stay, the complications, and the scar satisfaction scores were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The RRA group comprised 25 patients, and the RTA group had 25 patients. The mean operation time for reconstruction was 288 ± 77 min in the RRA group and 250 ± 98 min in the RTA group (p = 0.132). Flap failure occurred for two patients in the RRA group (8 %) and for one patient in the RTA group (4 %) (p = 1.000). The mean hospital stay was 21 ± 18 days in the RRA group and 23 ± 14 days in the RTA group (p = 0.669). The complications were comparable between the two groups. However, the overall scar satisfaction was significantly higher in the RRA group (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with head and neck cancer, RRA has better cosmetic outcomes than RTA. The RRA approach could be used for select patients who undergo RAND and prefer to avoid a visible anterior neck scar.
Authors: Jongmin Won; Jong Won Hong; Mi Jung Kim; In-Sik Yun; Woo Yeol Baek; Won Jai Lee; Dae Hyun Lew; Yoon Woo Koh; Se-Heon Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 3.052