4.6 Letter

Mucosal resurfacing of the suprastructure maxillectomy cavity using nasal cavity mucosa flaps

Journal

ORAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105289

Keywords

Maxillary sinus neoplasms; Nasal surgical procedures; Reconstructive surgical procedures; Surgical flaps; Radiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of nasal cavity mucosal flap to cover the suprastructure maxillectomy cavity was effective in improving the patient's quality of life by minimizing wound problems and facial contour changes despite postoperative radiotherapy.
Objective: We analyzed clinical data of patients in which the suprastructure maxillectomy site was covered with nasal cavity mucosa flaps with or without free mucosa graft from the nasal septum, to determine the usefulness of this procedure. Patients and methods: A total of four edentulous patients who had the suprastructure maxillectomy site covered using nasal cavity mucosa flaps with or without free mucosa graft from the nasal septum between 2014 and 2020, were analyzed. Results: All patients underwent suprastructure maxillectomy using the external approach. There were no major complications resulting from surgical intervention. Radiotherapy (RT) was performed in all patients after sur-gery. All nasal cavity mucosa flaps survived after RT. There was mild cheek retraction, but to a degree that was cosmetically tolerable in all patients. Local recurrence and distant metastasis to the orbit occurred in one patient. Among four patients, two patients died during follow-up, including one tumor related death and one death from old age. Conclusion: We demonstrated that the use of nasal cavity mucosal flap to cover the suprastructure maxillectomy cavity was effective in improving the patient's quality of life by minimizing wound problems and facial contour changes such as cheek retraction despite postoperative RT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available