Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer
Introduction. Surgical intervention remains the main method for treatment of the oral mucosa cancer. The generally accepted standard of the resection boundary that provides optimal local control is 5 mm. Adequate boundaries of indentation and choice of the reconstruction method are important issues...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
ABV-press
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Опухоли головы и шеи |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ogsh.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/932 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849401753241387008 |
|---|---|
| author | Sh. I. Musin K. V. Menshikov A. V. Sultanbayev I. A. Sharifgaleev V. V. Ilyin A. O. Guz A. N. Rudyk S. V. Osokin N. A. Sharafutdinova A. V. Chashchin A. V. Garev T. R. Baymuratov |
| author_facet | Sh. I. Musin K. V. Menshikov A. V. Sultanbayev I. A. Sharifgaleev V. V. Ilyin A. O. Guz A. N. Rudyk S. V. Osokin N. A. Sharafutdinova A. V. Chashchin A. V. Garev T. R. Baymuratov |
| author_sort | Sh. I. Musin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction. Surgical intervention remains the main method for treatment of the oral mucosa cancer. The generally accepted standard of the resection boundary that provides optimal local control is 5 mm. Adequate boundaries of indentation and choice of the reconstruction method are important issues facing specialists in head and neck tumors. Aim. To evaluate parameters of the resection edge in the surgical treatment of malignant neoplasms of the oral mucosa depending on the method of eliminating of the post-resection defect and its effect on the frequency of local relapse. Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis included 168 primary patients (50 % men and 50 % women) who received surgical treatment in the head and neck tumor department of the Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the ministry of Health of the Republic of Bashkortostan (ufa) from 2019 to 2023. The median age of patients was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 55–69 years). most often, the primary tumor was located in the tongue – in 59.5 % (100/168) of cases. According to the method of post-resection defect removal, the patients were divided into 3 groups. In group 1, reconstruction was performed with local tissues (n = 71), in group 2 – with pedicle flaps (n = 41), and in group 3 – with revascularized flaps (n = 56). The median follow-up period was 18 months (IQR 8–28 months). Results. Resection boundaries in group 1 were 7.0 mm (IQR 5.0–12.5 mm), in group 2 – 6.5 mm (IQR 5–13 mm), and in group 3 – 12.5 mm (IQR 7.5–15.0 mm). The overall frequency of near/positive resection boundaries was 14.8 % (25/168). In group 1, it was 15.5 % (11/71), in group 2 – 19.5 % (8/41), in group 3 – 10.7 % (6/56). According to the analysis, relapse of the disease after radical treatment was noted in 32 % (55/168) of patients, of which 14.8 % (25/168) had a local relapse, 12.5 % (21/168) had a regional relapse, and 5.4 % (9/168) developed distant metastases. The frequency of local relapse in group 1 was 18.3 % (13/71), in group 2 – 23.8 % (10/41), in group 3 – 5.5 % (3/56). According to the analysis data, statistically significant differences in the boundary of indentation in the groups were revealed depending on the reconstruction method (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Based on the results of the present retrospective analysis, the choice of reconstruction method affects the resection boundary in real clinical practice. Limitations in the surgical indentation that surgeon faces when choosing a method for eliminating a post-resection defect are demonstrated. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4d2629e770b2422faaeba2d21c608469 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2222-1468 2411-4634 |
| language | Russian |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | ABV-press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Опухоли головы и шеи |
| spelling | doaj-art-4d2629e770b2422faaeba2d21c6084692025-08-20T03:37:42ZrusABV-pressОпухоли головы и шеи2222-14682411-46342024-04-01134101810.17650/2222-1468-2023-13-4-10-18568Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancerSh. I. Musin0K. V. Menshikov1A. V. Sultanbayev2I. A. Sharifgaleev3V. V. Ilyin4A. O. Guz5A. N. Rudyk6S. V. Osokin7N. A. Sharafutdinova8A. V. Chashchin9A. V. Garev10T. R. Baymuratov11Republican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Bashkortostan; Bashkir State Medical University, Ministry of Health of RussiaRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Bashkortostan; Bashkir State Medical University, Ministry of Health of RussiaRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanChelyabinsk Regional Clinical Center of Oncology and Nuclear MedicineRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary named after Prof. M. Z. Sigal, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Tatarstan; Kazan State Medical Academy – branch of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, Ministry of Health; Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology of Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University of RussiaRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanChelyabinsk Regional Clinical Center of Oncology and Nuclear MedicineRepublican Clinical Oncological Dispensary, Ministry of Health of the Republic of BashkortostanIntroduction. Surgical intervention remains the main method for treatment of the oral mucosa cancer. The generally accepted standard of the resection boundary that provides optimal local control is 5 mm. Adequate boundaries of indentation and choice of the reconstruction method are important issues facing specialists in head and neck tumors. Aim. To evaluate parameters of the resection edge in the surgical treatment of malignant neoplasms of the oral mucosa depending on the method of eliminating of the post-resection defect and its effect on the frequency of local relapse. Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis included 168 primary patients (50 % men and 50 % women) who received surgical treatment in the head and neck tumor department of the Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the ministry of Health of the Republic of Bashkortostan (ufa) from 2019 to 2023. The median age of patients was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 55–69 years). most often, the primary tumor was located in the tongue – in 59.5 % (100/168) of cases. According to the method of post-resection defect removal, the patients were divided into 3 groups. In group 1, reconstruction was performed with local tissues (n = 71), in group 2 – with pedicle flaps (n = 41), and in group 3 – with revascularized flaps (n = 56). The median follow-up period was 18 months (IQR 8–28 months). Results. Resection boundaries in group 1 were 7.0 mm (IQR 5.0–12.5 mm), in group 2 – 6.5 mm (IQR 5–13 mm), and in group 3 – 12.5 mm (IQR 7.5–15.0 mm). The overall frequency of near/positive resection boundaries was 14.8 % (25/168). In group 1, it was 15.5 % (11/71), in group 2 – 19.5 % (8/41), in group 3 – 10.7 % (6/56). According to the analysis, relapse of the disease after radical treatment was noted in 32 % (55/168) of patients, of which 14.8 % (25/168) had a local relapse, 12.5 % (21/168) had a regional relapse, and 5.4 % (9/168) developed distant metastases. The frequency of local relapse in group 1 was 18.3 % (13/71), in group 2 – 23.8 % (10/41), in group 3 – 5.5 % (3/56). According to the analysis data, statistically significant differences in the boundary of indentation in the groups were revealed depending on the reconstruction method (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Based on the results of the present retrospective analysis, the choice of reconstruction method affects the resection boundary in real clinical practice. Limitations in the surgical indentation that surgeon faces when choosing a method for eliminating a post-resection defect are demonstrated.https://ogsh.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/932oral cancersurgical treatmentresection edgesreconstruction |
| spellingShingle | Sh. I. Musin K. V. Menshikov A. V. Sultanbayev I. A. Sharifgaleev V. V. Ilyin A. O. Guz A. N. Rudyk S. V. Osokin N. A. Sharafutdinova A. V. Chashchin A. V. Garev T. R. Baymuratov Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer Опухоли головы и шеи oral cancer surgical treatment resection edges reconstruction |
| title | Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| title_full | Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| title_short | Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer |
| topic | oral cancer surgical treatment resection edges reconstruction |
| url | https://ogsh.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/932 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shimusin comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT kvmenshikov comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT avsultanbayev comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT iasharifgaleev comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT vvilyin comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT aoguz comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT anrudyk comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT svosokin comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT nasharafutdinova comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT avchashchin comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT avgarev comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer AT trbaymuratov comparativeanalysisofresectionboundariesdependingonthedefecteliminationmethodinoralmucosalcancer |