No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundIn Canada, 4,400 cases of oral cancer are diagnosed yearly. Surgical resection is a key component of treatment in many of these cancers. Reconstruction of defects, with the goal of preserving function, is of utmost importance. Several choices are possible for reconstruction of larger defects, including both free and pedicled flaps. Free flap reconstruction is reliable and effective, but requires additional personnel and peri-operative resources. Pedicled flaps remain an important alternative to free flaps, and are less resource intensive. This paper reviews our inaugural experience with the submental island flap (SIF) and compares costs incurred to a matched cohort of oral cancer patients reconstructed with forearm free flaps.MethodsCharts of patients who underwent SIF and RFFF reconstruction from January 1st 2013 to April 1st 2015 were retrospectively examined. Associated costs were obtained via online database and previously reported costs at the study institution.ResultsMean length of ICU stay in glossectomy RFFF reconstruction was 4.7 days. Only one patient required ICU stay for one night in the SIF group. Mean length of hospital stay was not significantly different in SIF patients vs RFFF patients (12.4 vs 15.4 days, p > 0.05). Mean operative time was significantly lower in the SIF group compared to the RFFF group (347 vs 552 min, p < 0.05). Total mean intraoperative costs were found to be $4780.59 for RFFF operations, versus $2307.94 for SIF. Total mean cost of post-operative stay was $18158.40 in the SIF group and $43617.60 in the RFFF group. Total cost savings were therefore $27931.85 per patient for the SIF group.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated the use of the submental island flap as an alternative to radial forearm free flaps, showing both decreased hospital costs and comparable patient outcomes. Pedicled flaps are making a resurgence in head and neck reconstruction, and the submental island flap offers an excellent alternative to more labour intensive and costly free flap alternatives.

The objective of this analysis is to compare endoscopic stenting with surgical bypass in patients with unresectable, malignant, distal common bile duct obstruction using the technique of meta-analysis. The inclusion criteria for the studies were randomized patient assignment, publication in the English language, 20 or more patients per group, all patients followed up until death, and follow-up and complications reported in an equivalent way for both treatment arms. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 of the authors. The number of treatment failures, serious complications, requirement for additional treatment sessions, and 30-day mortality were extracted. Three existing trials met the inclusion criteria, all of which compared surgery with the use of plastic stents. There were no studies identified that used metallic expandable stents. For the rate of treatment failure and serious complications, the odds ratios (ORs) of the 3 trials were heterogeneous, and no summary ORs were calculated. More treatment sessions were required after stent placement than after surgery, and a common OR was estimated to be 7.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.73 to 13.98). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different (OR = 0.522; 95% CI, 0.263 to 1.036). Although surgical bypass required fewer additional treatment sessions, existing data do not allow a definitive conclusion on which treatment is preferable. A larger randomized controlled trial using newer metallic stents and proper quality-of-life instruments is required.