4.1 Article

Free flap reconstruction for patients aged 85 years and over with head and neck cancer: clinical considerations for comprehensive care

期刊

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.07.003

关键词

Patients aged 85 years and over; Head and neck cancer; Free flap reconstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to identify and evaluate the clinical challenges involved in microvascular flap reconstructions of defects caused by resection of head and neck cancer among patients aged 85 and over. We designed a retrospective study of patients who were treated in the head and neck department of a tertiary referral centre from 2005 to 2015, and all patients aged 85 years and over who had reconstructions with microvascular flaps for head and neck cancer were entered into the study. A total of 24 patients fulfilled the criteria, of whom 15 were men and nine were women. The median (range) duration of stay in hospital was 23 (14-59) days. Eighteen patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score grade II and six patients grade III. The median (range) operating time was 420 (310-705)minutes, and operative blood loss 550 (200-1500)ml. Sixteen patients had prophylactic tracheostomies, nine of whom developed postoperative surgical complications, seven associated with the tracheostomy (p=0.005). Resections of head and neck cancer and microvascular reconstructions in patients aged 85 and over are associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications. Medical complications tend to be associated with the tracheostomy while surgical complications are potentially associated with the ASA score. Although the morbidity is high, complex resections and microvascular reconstructions are successful with optimum recovery, and age did not seem to influence the outcome. However, it is necessary to avoid prophylactic tracheostomy if possible in these patients. (C) 2017 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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