4.2 Article

Metastasis to submandibular glands in oral cavity cancers: Can we preserve the gland safely?

期刊

AURIS NASUS LARYNX
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 322-325

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2015.02.006

关键词

Neck dissection; SMG excision; Oral carcinoma; Justified

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyze submandibular gland (SMG) involvement in cases of oral cavity cancers and decide whether to remove submandibular glands while performing neck dissections for oral cavity cancers to decrease the incidence of xerostomia, a common issue post-operatively. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 157 neck dissections out of 204 neck dissections performed for oral cavity carcinomas in the Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery from 2008 to 2013 was done. SMG was bilaterally removed in 6 dissections, hence a total of 163 glands were analyzed. Those involved by tumor in histopathology were further studied for the pattern of involvement. Results: 3.68% (6/163) glands showed involvement by the tumor. 9.20% (15/163) showed chronic sialoadenitic changes. Four of the six involved glands showed direct contiguous spread from primary lesion, one showed extra-capsular spread from level IB lymph nodes and evidence of both modes of spread was seen in one. Evidence of metastasis was not seen in any of the glands (0%). Literature review showed a metastasis rate of 0.096% (2/2074). Conclusion: Metastatic involvement of submandibular gland is extremely rare. Submandibular gland preservation, in the absence of evidence of gross contiguous involvement, does not affect survival. Hence, SMG can be safely spared during neck dissections for oral cavity squamous cell cancers except in certain situations such as close proximity of the primary lesion to gland, presence of intra-capsular lymph nodes in radiology, gross intraoperative evidence of invasion of the SMG and in salvage surgeries performed in post-irradiated and recurrent cases. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据