RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological, functional, clinical and cosmetic results of peroral resection and pull-through resection in early stage (T1, T2) tongue and floor of the mouth cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients (23 females, 26 males; mean age 54.4 years; range 21 to 87 years) with stage T1 and T2 oral tongue and floor of the mouth cancers primarily treated with peroral resection or pull-through resection techniques between 1998 and 2008 were included in this study. The data obtained during the study (clinical follow-up, tumor stage, type of surgery) were retrospectively evaluated, and the data obtained from patient follow-up (relapse, speaking, eating and drinking function, cosmetic appearance, patient satisfaction) were evaluated prospectively. Twenty-two patients were staged T1 and 27 patients were staged T2. Ten patients with stage T1 underwent pull-through resection, 12 patients with stage T1 underwent peroral resection. Sixteen patients with stage T2 underwent pull-through resection, 11 patients with stage T2 underwent peroral resection. Independent Samples T-test, One Way ANOVA test and Chi-Square test were used to compare these two resection techniques. RESULTS: Cervical lymph node metastases were detected in 13 patients (27%) of 49 patients with early stage T1-T2 during postoperative histopathological evaluation. The difference was statistically significant in terms of recurrence in T2 tumors (p<0.05). The recurrence rate was 26% in patients who underwent peroral resection and 3.8% in patients who underwent pull-through resection with stage T1 and T2. Although there was no significant difference when comparing patient satisfaction, cosmetic appearance and postoperative complications, a significant difference was found for nasogastric tube and prophylactic tracheotomy applications in patients who underwent pull-through resection (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Pull-through resection is oncologically safer than peroral resection at the early stage (T1, T2) of floor of the mouth and oral tongue carcinomas. There was no significant difference between the two techniques concerning function and cosmesis.