Reporting of Cosmesis in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-579
Author(s):  
Peter M. Vila ◽  
Tam Ramsey ◽  
Lauren H. Yaeger ◽  
Shaun C. Desai ◽  
Gregory H. Branham
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Neck Reconstruction ◽  
Cosmetic Outcomes ◽  
Validated Instrument

Objective To identify the method and rate at which cosmesis is reported after reconstruction from head and neck surgery among adults. Data Sources A medical librarian implemented search strategies in multiple databases for head and neck reconstruction, outcome assessment/patient satisfaction, and cosmesis/appearance. Review Methods Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to capture studies examining adults undergoing reconstruction after head and neck cancer surgery with assessment of postoperative cosmesis. The primary outcome was the method to assess cosmesis. Secondary outcomes were types of instruments used and the rate at which results were reported. Validated instruments used in these studies were compared and critically assessed. Results The search identified 4405 abstracts, and 239 studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 43% (n = 103) used a scale or questionnaire to quantify the cosmetic outcome: 28% (n = 66), a visual analog, Likert, or other scale; 13% (n = 30), a patient questionnaire; and 3% (n = 7), both. Of the 103 studies that used an instrument, 14% (n = 14, 6% overall) used a validated instrument. The most common validated instrument was the University of Washington Quality of Life (UWQOL) questionnaire (4%, n = 9). The most highly rated instruments were the UWQOL and the Derriford Appearance Scale. Conclusions Reporting of cosmetic outcomes after head and neck cancer reconstruction is heterogeneous. Most studies did not report patient feedback, and a minority used a validated instrument to quantify outcomes. To reduce bias, improve reliability, and decrease heterogeneity, we recommend the UWQOL to study cosmetic outcomes after head and neck reconstruction.

The Extended Pectoralis Major Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction

1986 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence T. Sasaki ◽  
Linda J. Gardiner ◽  
Roy D. Carlson ◽  
Thomas Vris
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Pectoralis Major ◽  
Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽  
Pectoralis Major Flap ◽  
Reconstructive Procedures ◽  
Musculocutaneous Flaps ◽  
Neck Reconstruction ◽  
Reconstructive Techniques

Historically, major extirpative surgery for control of head and neck cancer developed well in advance of reconstructive procedures that could provide acceptable functional and cosmetic rehabilitation. Introduction of cutaneous axial and random flaps— followed more recently by the description of musculocutaneous flaps—represented major advances in reconstructive techniques.

scholarly journals THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC TO HEAD AND NECK CANCER CARE IN HASAN SADIKIN HOSPITAL BANDUNG, INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-66
Author(s):  
YUSSY AFRIANI DEWI ◽  
AGUNG DINASTI PERMANA ◽  
DENIS ANUGRAH OKTRIVIANTO
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Social Restriction ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Descriptive Method

Objective: This study represents head and neck cancer patient’s care at Departement of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (ORL-HNS) in Hasan Sadikin General Hospital during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The study is done using a retrospective descriptive method based on medical record data in patients with head and neck cancer at Oncology Departement of ORL-HNS, Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung from March to July 2020. Samples were selected with total sampling. All existing subjects who met the study criteria were enrolled. The inclusion criteria in this study were head and neck cancer patients from March to July 2020. The exclusion criteria were incomplete medical records data. Results: The number of outpatient visits at ORL-HNS Departement, Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital Bandung from March to July was 3723 patients with 1796 of them are oncology outpatients. There was a significant decrease in the number of ORL-HNS outpatient in April and May and began to increase steadily in June and July. This is in line with the start of the big-scale social restriction at the end of March and the start of the ‘new normal’ era in early June. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the significant impact of the COVID-19 crisis on oncological care. During COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of HNC patients has been severely disrupted and caused a decrease in the number of procedures at Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital Bandung.

scholarly journals Bioelectrical impedance phase angle as a prognostic indicator of survival in head-and-neck cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 481 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.S. Wladysiuk ◽  
R. Mlak ◽  
K. Morshed ◽  
W. Surtel ◽  
A. Brzozowska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Phase Angle ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Department Head ◽  
Nutrition Status

Background Phase angle could be an alternative to subjective global assessment for the assessment of nutrition status in patients with head-and-neck cancer.Methods We prospectively evaluated a cohort of 75 stage iiib and iv head-and-neck patients treated at the Otolaryngology Department, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Lublin, Poland. Bioelectrical impedance analysis was performed in all patients using an analyzer that operated at 50 kHz. The phase angle was calculated as reactance divided by resistance (Xc/R) and expressed in degrees. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to calculate survival.Results Median overall survival in the cohort was 32.0 months. At the time of analysis, 47 deaths had been recorded in the cohort (62.7%). The risk of shortened overall survival was significantly higher in patients whose phase angle was less than 4.733 degrees than in the remaining patients (19.6 months vs. 45 months, p = 0.0489; chi-square: 3.88; hazard ratio: 1.8856; 95% confidence interval: 1.0031 to 3.5446).Conclusions Phase angle might be prognostic of survival in patients with advanced head-and-neck cancer. Further investigation in a larger population is required to confirm our results.

Carotid Artery Resection for Head and Neck Cancer

1992 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. 778-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Maves ◽  
Matthew D. Bruns ◽  
Michael J. Keenan
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Death Rate ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Palliative Surgery ◽  
University Of Iowa ◽  
Artery Ligation ◽  
Artery Resection

Occasionally, the head and neck surgeon encounters a patient whose malignancy involves the carotid artery. In these patients, curative or palliative surgery may require excision of the common or the internal carotid artery. However, the high complication and death rates dissuade many surgeons from undertaking carotid artery resection. This study reviews the outcomes in 20 patients treated between 1979 and 1985 at the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, with resection of the carotid artery for head and neck cancer. The carotid artery was electively resected in 16 patients, while 4 patients underwent emergent carotid artery ligation. In the group of patients studied the stroke rate was 25%, the death rate 20%, and the combined stroke and death rate 30%. Of the patients who survived the procedure, all but 1 died of complications caused by tumor recurrence. These results are discussed, and compared with results from other studies.

scholarly journals Anaesthesia for head and neck surgery: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (S2) ◽  
pp. S23-S27 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Charters ◽  
I Ahmad ◽  
A Patel ◽  
S Russell
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
World Health ◽  
Operative Care ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThis is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. The anaesthetic considerations for head and neck cancer surgery are especially challenging given the high burden of concurrent comorbidity in this patient group and the need to share the airway with the surgical team. This paper provides recommendations on the anaesthetic considerations during surgery for head and neck cancer.Recommendations• All theatre staff should participate in the World Health Organization checklist process. (R)• Post-operative airway management should be guided by local protocols. (R)• Patients admitted to post-operative care units with tracheal tubes in place should be monitored with continuous capnography. Removal for tracheal tubes is the responsibility of the anaesthetist. (R)• Anaesthetists should formally hand over care to an appropriately trained practitioner in the post-operative or intensive care unit. (G)• Intensive care unit staff looking after post-operative tracheostomies must be clear about which patients are not suitable for bag-mask ventilation and/or oral intubation in the event of emergencies. (R)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document