Transoral versus transfacial surgical approach to maxillary tumors: evaluation of outcomes and perspectives.

Neoplasms of the maxilla have multiple different origins and histology, and often extend towards the infratemporal fossa, orbit, or skull base. Extensive resection may be required, often leading to poor esthetic and functional results. Usually, these lesions are removed via a transfacial approach. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the transoral versus transfacial approach for maxillary tumors. A single-institution retrospective study was conducted on patients with maxillary-midface tumors, treated between January 2009 and December 2019. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach, transfacial or transoral, and the following outcomes were assessed: extent of the resection based on Brown's classification; postoperative pathology margin assessment; reconstruction technique; esthetic/functional results. A total of 178 patients were included. A satisfactory resection was obtained in both groups, with the transoral cohort achieving a higher rate of clear oncological margins (positive margins: transoral group 3.7% versus transfacial group 6.8%, P = 0.389) and a significantly higher University of Washington Quality of Life score (mean 72.2 versus 67.8, P < 0.001). Even large and invasive tumors can be treated successfully with the transoral approach, avoiding unesthetic facial scars while still providing complete resection of the tumor.

Impact of COVID-19 epidemic on maxillofacial surgery in Italy.

Maxillofacial departments in 23 surgical units in Italy have been increasingly involved in facing the COVID-19 emergency. Elective surgeries have been progressively postponed to free up beds and offer human and material resources to those infected. We compiled an inventory of 32 questions to evaluate the impact of the SARS-COV2 epidemic on maxillofacial surgery in 23 selected Italian maxillofacial departments. The questionnaire focused on three different aspects: the variation of the workload, showing both a reduction of the number of team members (-16% among specialists, -11% among residents) due to reallocation or contamination and a consistent reduction of elective activities (the number of outpatient visits cancelled during the first month of the COVID-19 epidemic was about 10 000 all over Italy), while only tumour surgery and trauma surgery has been widely guaranteed; the screening procedures on patients and physicians (22% of maxillofacial units found infected surgeons, which is 4% of all maxillofacial surgeons); and the availability of Personal Protective Equipment, is only considered to be partial in 48% of Maxillofacial departments. This emergency has forced those of us in the Italian health system to change the way we work, but only time will prove if these changes have been effective.

Our experience in the surgical management of craniofacial fibrous dysplasia: what has changed in the last 10 years?

The mainstay of treatment of craniofacial dysplasia (CFD) remains surgery once clinical observation has been excluded. Nevertheless, disagreement remains about the type of surgical intervention (remodelling versus radical resection). The aim of this paper is to present our experience until 2013 comparing CFD management between 1980 and 2002 and between 2003 and 2013 and to propose our surgical algorithm. From January 2003 to December 2013, 41 new patients (18 males and 23 females) with histologically demonstrated CFD presented to our Department. Data were compared with those of 95 patients observed and/or treated between 1980 and 2002. Considering the last period, we noted that observation (26/41 patients) was the most used method; radical resection was performed in most cases (8/15 patients), but in proportion the numbers of patients undergoing bone shaving has increased (6% between 1980 and 2002 vs 15% between 2003 and 2013), while a decrease in the number of patients undergoing excision was seen (63% between 1980 and 2002 vs. 19% between 2003 and 2013). On this basis, we believe that radical resection is the only technique to obtain resolution of fibrous dysplasia. Wait-and-see is indicated in case of stable lesions. Reconstructive techniques allow obtaining adequate aesthetical and functional results; nevertheless, in most cases adjunctive surgical refinements are required and recovery time is higher than with surgical shaving, so that most patients prefer to perform remodelling. Nevertheless, in case of aggressive lesions radical resection is mandatory, except in paediatric patients with residual large defects in which it can be acceptable to try to resolve symptoms via bone shaving, reserving more aggressive treatments in case of relapse or after skeletal maturity.