Evan B Rosen1, Charles L Palin2, Joseph M Huryn1, Richard J Wong3. 1. Dental Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Dental Medicine, Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. METHODS: Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost-related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:409-414, 2019.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancerpatients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. METHODS: Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancerpatient within NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost-related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancerpatient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:409-414, 2019.
Authors: A B Kornblith; I M Zlotolow; J Gooen; J M Huryn; T Lerner; E W Strong; J P Shah; R H Spiro; J C Holland Journal: Head Neck Date: 1996 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Jamie P Levine; Jin Soo Bae; Marc Soares; Lawrence E Brecht; Pierre B Saadeh; Daniel J Ceradini; David L Hirsch Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.730