Jennifer L Spiegel1, Yiannis Pilavakis2, Bernhard G Weiss3, Martin Canis3, Christian Welz2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Jennifer.Spiegel@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gold-standard for defect reconstruction in the head and neck region is the radial free forearm flap (RFFF). The supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) gained popularity due to its versatility. Our objective was to compare functional advantages between both modalities. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive cases with advanced-stage squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx after cancer defect reconstruction with two modalities (12 SCAIF; 12 RFFF) was conducted. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30-questions (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Head and Neck 35-questions (QLQ-H&N35). RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 22.2 ± 9.5 months. Comparison of quality of life (QOL) showed significant differences only in speech and problems with the senses in favor of the SCAIF. CONCLUSION: Patients report satisfactory QOL results after oncologic surgery and reconstruction with preliminary no significant differences in most aspects comparing the two modalities. Therefore, the SCAIF appears as a viable alternative to the gold standard, the RFFF.
PURPOSE: Gold-standard for defect reconstruction in the head and neck region is the radial free forearm flap (RFFF). The supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) gained popularity due to its versatility. Our objective was to compare functional advantages between both modalities. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive cases with advanced-stage squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx after cancer defect reconstruction with two modalities (12 SCAIF; 12 RFFF) was conducted. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30-questions (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Head and Neck 35-questions (QLQ-H&N35). RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 22.2 ± 9.5 months. Comparison of quality of life (QOL) showed significant differences only in speech and problems with the senses in favor of the SCAIF. CONCLUSION:Patients report satisfactory QOL results after oncologic surgery and reconstruction with preliminary no significant differences in most aspects comparing the two modalities. Therefore, the SCAIF appears as a viable alternative to the gold standard, the RFFF.
Entities:
Keywords:
HNSCC; Quality of life; Radial free forearm flap; SCAIF; Supraclavicular island flap
Authors: Jay W Granzow; Ahmed Suliman; Jason Roostaeian; Adam Perry; J Brian Boyd Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Paul Friedlander; Salvatore Caruana; Bhuvanesh Singh; Ashok Shaha; Dennis Kraus; Louis Harrison; Janet McKiernan; Jill Solan; Tatyana Polyak; Jatin P Shah Journal: Head Neck Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Jay W Granzow; Ahmed Suliman; Jason Roostaeian; Adam Perry; J Brian Boyd Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Chantal Quinten; Corneel Coens; Irina Ghislain; Efstathios Zikos; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Jolie Ringash; Francesca Martinelli; Divine E Ediebah; John Maringwa; Bryce B Reeve; Eva Greimel; Madeleine T King; Kristin Bjordal; Hans-Henning Flechtner; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joachim Weis; Hans Wildiers; Galina Velikova; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 9.162