Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted?
Context: The term giant mandibular ameloblastoma (GMAs) while being in popular usage in the medical literature remains largely equivocal. Although a few authors have in the past attempted to ascribe definite criteria to this entity, these are by and large arbitrary and without any benefit in decisio...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
2018-05-01
|
| Series: | Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.4103/ijps.IJPS_194_17 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849699483841986560 |
|---|---|
| author | Aditya V. Kanoi Tibar Banerjee Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy Arindam Sarkar Pooja Kanoi Sushovan Saha |
| author_facet | Aditya V. Kanoi Tibar Banerjee Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy Arindam Sarkar Pooja Kanoi Sushovan Saha |
| author_sort | Aditya V. Kanoi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Context: The term giant mandibular ameloblastoma (GMAs) while being in popular usage in the medical literature remains largely equivocal. Although a few authors have in the past attempted to ascribe definite criteria to this entity, these are by and large arbitrary and without any benefit in decision-making or contributing to its management. Aims: The aim of this study is to propose a set of objective criteria for GMAs that can be clinically correlated and thereby aid in the management of this entity. Patients and Methods: Of a total of 16 patients with ameloblastoma of the mandible presenting at our institute from August 2012 to September 2016, 11 patients were identified as having GMAs as per the criteria proposed. Results: The defects in the mandible following segmental resection ranged from 7 to 11.5 cm in length (mean: 9.3 cm). No clinical or radiological evidence of tumour recurrence was found during a mean follow-up period of 10.7 months (range: 2–28 months). Conclusions: Defining GMA based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria allows segregation of these lesions, thereby helping to remove ambiguity, simplify decision-making and facilitate communication among treating reconstructive surgeons. Inclusion criteria include: (i) The segmental bone defect following resection with a minimum 1 cm margin of healthy bone should exceed 6 cm (ii) The segmental bone defect should involve the central mandibular segment. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2fb4ec2959384b61be6e1dfa3d1870e7 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 0970-0358 1998-376X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-05-01 |
| publisher | Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery |
| spelling | doaj-art-2fb4ec2959384b61be6e1dfa3d1870e72025-08-20T03:18:34ZengThieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery0970-03581998-376X2018-05-01510220821510.4103/ijps.IJPS_194_17Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted?Aditya V. Kanoi0Tibar Banerjee1Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy2Arindam Sarkar3Pooja Kanoi4Sushovan Saha5Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, IndiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, IndiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, IndiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, IndiaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangaluru, Karnataka, IndiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, IndiaContext: The term giant mandibular ameloblastoma (GMAs) while being in popular usage in the medical literature remains largely equivocal. Although a few authors have in the past attempted to ascribe definite criteria to this entity, these are by and large arbitrary and without any benefit in decision-making or contributing to its management. Aims: The aim of this study is to propose a set of objective criteria for GMAs that can be clinically correlated and thereby aid in the management of this entity. Patients and Methods: Of a total of 16 patients with ameloblastoma of the mandible presenting at our institute from August 2012 to September 2016, 11 patients were identified as having GMAs as per the criteria proposed. Results: The defects in the mandible following segmental resection ranged from 7 to 11.5 cm in length (mean: 9.3 cm). No clinical or radiological evidence of tumour recurrence was found during a mean follow-up period of 10.7 months (range: 2–28 months). Conclusions: Defining GMA based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria allows segregation of these lesions, thereby helping to remove ambiguity, simplify decision-making and facilitate communication among treating reconstructive surgeons. Inclusion criteria include: (i) The segmental bone defect following resection with a minimum 1 cm margin of healthy bone should exceed 6 cm (ii) The segmental bone defect should involve the central mandibular segment.http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.4103/ijps.IJPS_194_17ameloblastomafibula free flapjaw neoplasmsmandibular reconstructionnon-vascularised bone graftsegmental mandibulectomy |
| spellingShingle | Aditya V. Kanoi Tibar Banerjee Narayanamurthy Sundaramurthy Arindam Sarkar Pooja Kanoi Sushovan Saha Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery ameloblastoma fibula free flap jaw neoplasms mandibular reconstruction non-vascularised bone graft segmental mandibulectomy |
| title | Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? |
| title_full | Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? |
| title_fullStr | Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? |
| title_short | Defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas – Is a separate clinical sub-entity warranted? |
| title_sort | defining giant mandibular ameloblastomas is a separate clinical sub entity warranted |
| topic | ameloblastoma fibula free flap jaw neoplasms mandibular reconstruction non-vascularised bone graft segmental mandibulectomy |
| url | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.4103/ijps.IJPS_194_17 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT adityavkanoi defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted AT tibarbanerjee defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted AT narayanamurthysundaramurthy defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted AT arindamsarkar defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted AT poojakanoi defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted AT sushovansaha defininggiantmandibularameloblastomasisaseparateclinicalsubentitywarranted |