The Journal of otolaryngology · 2006
Morbidity and cost differences between free flap reconstruction and pedicled flap reconstruction in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: Matched control study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smeele Ludwig E, Goldstein David, Tsai Vance, Gullane Patrick J, Neligan Peter, Brown Dale H, Irish Jonathan C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare morbidity and cost in patients who underwent primary reconstruction with free tissue transfer with those with pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF) reconstructions after ablation of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.
METHODS: Over a 6-year period, 36 patients had PMMF reconstructions and 127 patients had a variety of free flap (FRF) reconstructions after oral and oropharyngeal cancer ablation. Correction for confounding patient and disease variables was performed by matching all PMMF patients to a randomly selected cohort of FRF patients for age, sex, International Union Against Cancer-American Joint Committee on Cancer T category, tumour subsite, and radiotherapy status. This resulted in two groups of 32 patients each, with the flap reconstruction being the only variable. The following outcome variables were analyzed: operative time; blood loss; admission length, including intensive care unit and coronary care unit stay; complications; secondary interventions; readmissions; and feeding status. Cumulative costs of nursing care, hospital supplies and charges, surgeon's fees, and anesthesiologist's fees were calculated. Statistical analysis applied the paired Student's t-test and the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Of all morbidity parameters, only operative time was significantly longer for FRF (p < .0001). Analysis of other outcome variables and costs showed no statistically significant differences (p > .05).
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that morbidity and cost differ between the pedicled flap and free tissue transfer reconstruction strategies, other than lengthier operating room time for FRF.
METHODS: Over a 6-year period, 36 patients had PMMF reconstructions and 127 patients had a variety of free flap (FRF) reconstructions after oral and oropharyngeal cancer ablation. Correction for confounding patient and disease variables was performed by matching all PMMF patients to a randomly selected cohort of FRF patients for age, sex, International Union Against Cancer-American Joint Committee on Cancer T category, tumour subsite, and radiotherapy status. This resulted in two groups of 32 patients each, with the flap reconstruction being the only variable. The following outcome variables were analyzed: operative time; blood loss; admission length, including intensive care unit and coronary care unit stay; complications; secondary interventions; readmissions; and feeding status. Cumulative costs of nursing care, hospital supplies and charges, surgeon's fees, and anesthesiologist's fees were calculated. Statistical analysis applied the paired Student's t-test and the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Of all morbidity parameters, only operative time was significantly longer for FRF (p < .0001). Analysis of other outcome variables and costs showed no statistically significant differences (p > .05).
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that morbidity and cost differ between the pedicled flap and free tissue transfer reconstruction strategies, other than lengthier operating room time for FRF.