Patient-reported outcomes after oral cancer reconstructions with radial and ulnar forearm-free flaps.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported quality of life and incidence of decision regret in patients undergoing radial (RFFF) and ulnar forearm-free flaps (UFFF) reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing either RFFF or UFFF were assessed with the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), both before and at least 12 months post-reconstruction. RESULTS: In total, 40 RFFF and 40 UFFF were included. Harvesting time was longer in RFFF (p = 0.043), and the donor-site defect was significantly larger in RFFF than in UFFF (p = 0.044). Patients with UFFF scored better UW-QOL in the appearance, pain, activity, mood, and social functioning domains (p < 0.05). However, the RFFF group excelled in swallowing and chewing domains. The DRS score revealed a significant difference between RFFF and UFFF, with scores of 36.26 versus 27.36, respectively. Moreover, the mean DRS score reduced at 12 months compared with 6 months, significantly superior for UFFF. CONCLUSION: Oral cancer patients reconstructed with UFFF exhibited a better appearance, social domain, and mild decision regret compared with RFFF, indicating that the UFFF may contribute to improving postoperative quality of life in oral cancer patients.

Medial sural artery perforator free flap versus radial forearm free flap in oral cavity reconstruction and donor site morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: Radial Forearm Free flap (RFFF) is widely used in head and neck reconstruction, yet its donor site defect remains a significant drawback. The Medial Sural Artery Perforator Free Flap (MSAPFF) is considered an alternative flap to RFFF. This study aims to comprehensively analyze their characteristics, outcomes, and their impact on patient quality of life. METHODS: All patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction using RFFF and MSAPFF between February 2017 and April 2023 were included in this study. Flap characteristics, outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded and compared. Subjective donor site morbidity, aesthetic and functional results, and quality of life were also analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 76 patients: 37 underwent reconstruction with RFFF, and 39 with MSAPFF. There was no significance difference between the RFFF and MSAPFF regarding the success rate (97.2% vs 97.4%), flap size (4.8 × 8.8 cm2 vs 5 × 9.8 cm2), hospital of stay (15.5 days vs 13.5 days) and recipient site complications (P > 0.05). However, MSAPFF showed larger flap thickness (P = 0.001), smaller arterial caliber (P = 0.008), shorter pedicle length (P = 0.001), and longer harvesting time (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the pre-and postoperative ranges of wrist and ankle movements or in recipient site complications. MSAPFF showed a significant difference in donor site morbidity (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MSAPFF is an excellent alternative to the RFFF for repairing oral cavity defects, with additional advantage of a well-hidden scar on the posterior calf, a larger flap thickness, accepted pedicle length and arterial caliber. However, one should consider the harvesting time and surgical skills required in comparison to the RFFF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study highlights the importance of the MSAPFF as an alternative option for RFFF with less donor site morbidity and high success rate in oral cavity reconstruction and improved patient Quality of life after ablative surgery.

Perioperative risk factors impact on intensive care unit length of stay (ICU length of stay) in oral squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The trend in postoperative care for free flap patients is to deescalate from routine ICU admission into a specialty recovery unit. This study aims to investigate the predictive parameters in a routine perioperative clinical assessment that are expected to be directly correlated with prolonged ICU length of stay in at-risk patients who received oral reconstructive surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: All patients who underwent ablative surgery for OSCC with free flap reconstruction and were managed in the ICU were included in this study. The primary outcome was ICU-length of stay. Perioperative, operative and postoperative parameters were analyzed using single test ( t-test, ANOVA analysis, correlation coefficients, effect size) and multivariate regression test. The P-value was set as < 0.005 to be considered statically significant. RESULTS: The study included 136 homogeneous patients, with a mean ICU length of stay of 4.5 (± 4.43 day). Patients with pre-operative positive renal dysfunction (P = 0.004), peripheral vascular disease (P < 0.001), postoperative complications (P = 0.028) or positive heart failure class III (P < 0.001 ) were recognized as at-risk patients for a significantly longer ICU length of stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with perioperative severe renal dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease, postoperative complication or high NYHA class are prone to have a significantly longer ICU length of stay. Several factors were considered as confounders contributing to increased ICU management time in combination with other variables. Additionally, in highly risk patient, the presence of the highly trained medical support, including the appropriate nursing care, is more critical than those patients without these risk factors.

Is the retromandibular approach a suitable approach to anatomical reduction of unilateral subcondylar fracture? A non-randomized clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the retromandibular approach (RMA) to produce three-dimensional (3-D) reduction of the unilateral subcondylar fracture and Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) functional implication. METHODS:  A prospective cohort study was designed. Twenty-nine patients with unilateral subcondylar fracture underwent consecutively Open Reduction, and Internal Fixation. The cohorts were divided into two groups; RMA group (n = 16, 55.17%) and submandibular approach SMA group (n = 13, 44.82%). The primary outcome was the anatomical 3-D reduction of the condyle. The secondary outcome was to compare the condyle position and inclination finding with TMJ outcomes. Helkimo Index score was used to evaluate the TMJ outcome at six months postoperatively. RESULT:  There was a significant difference between the mediolateral condylar inclination, condylar medial and vertical positions when RMA compared with SMA groups (P < 0.05). The medial joint space was correlated with the medial condylar position in both groups (P < 0.05). The Helkimo Ai and Di was associated with mediolateral condylar inclination in SMG; however, Helkimo Ai was found to be correlated with the RMA group. CONCLUSION:  The current study demonstrates that the RMA could re-establish the anatomical position of the unilateral subcondylar fracture in patients undergoing ORIF. The clinical outcome of the TMJ with RMA was better than SMA.

Three-dimensional assessment of accuracy for open reduction and internal fixation of the subcondylar fracture and its implications on the TMJ function.

This study used three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to assist the accuracy of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the unilateral subcondylar fracture and the long-term temporomandibular joint (TMJ) function impairment. Bilateral TMJs were analyzed postoperatively on CBCT images, involving the following three-dimensional (3D) parameters: condylar position and inclination; circumferential joint space, ramus, and mandible length; and the volumetric joint space. The inclusion criteria for adult patients included having a displaced fracture >5°, a shortening in ramus length >2 mm, and mouth opening limitation. The non-fracture side was used as the comparison group. The Helkimo index was employed for the clinical assessment of the outcomes, while the paired student t-test and Pearson coefficient test were used to compare both sides. The study included 60 joints in 30 consecutive patients. The condylar inclination to the horizontal plane on the fracture and non-fracture sides was 9.29 ± 3.9°, 12.46 ± 4.2°, (p < 0.001) and was positively related to the subjective (Helkimo Hi) and objective (Helkimo Di) clinical outcomes. In contrast, the condylar position to the midsagittal plane in the fracture and non-fracture sides was 51.95 ± 3.5 mm, 50.17 ± 3.6 mm (P = 0.038), and was positively related to the objective outcomes. Additionally, the objective outcome was negatively related to the change of the posterior joint space. CONCLUSION: The three-dimensional assessments seem to demonstrate that the ORIF is an accurate approach for obtaining a three-dimensional reduction to the displaced subcondylar fracture.

Tissue-engineered bone using mesenchymal stem cells versus conventional bone grafts in the regeneration of maxillary alveolar bone: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare tissue-engineered bone using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and conventional bone grafts in terms of histomorphometric outcome, bone gained, and implant failure in the atrophic maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted. An electronic search of several databases was performed. RCTs comparing tissue-engineered bone using MSCs to bone graft alone in rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla were included. Outcome variables were a mean percentage of new bone formation, residual graft particles, and connective tissue. Bone gained and implant failure rate were also assessed. Risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 190 augmented sites enrolled in 12 RCTs were included in this study. Nine of the 12 RCTs included 153 maxillary sinuses that underwent sinus elevation, and three RCTs included 28 patients with bone grafting only. There was no significant increase in new bone formation between the two groups at 3 to 4 months (SMD = -0.232, CI, -0.659 to 0.195, low-quality evidence). However, at 6 months postgrafting, a statistically significant increase in new bone formation was found in favor of the tissue-engineered bone using the MSC group (SMD = 0.869%, CI, -1.98 to 9.310, moderate-quality evidence). No substantial difference was found between the two groups with respect to residual graft particles, connective tissue, bone gained, and implant failure rate (RR = 2.8, CI: 0.517 to 16.6, P = .226, very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: There is moderate- to very low-quality evidence supporting the use of tissue-engineered bone using MSC therapy in maxillary alveolar bone regeneration compared with conventional bone grafting without MSCs.