2011
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-011-1106-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional outcome after different oncological interventions in head and neck cancer patients

Abstract: Although both treatment options (surgery and surgery with radiotherapy) were performed according to the tumor stage of patients, there are significant differences in the functional outcome of these patients as observed in this study. There is a lack of a measuring instrument that will be the "gold standard" in the assessment of head and neck functional mobility. This study will allow the reflection of our current practice and may stimulate further well-designed prospective studies.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Progression of ORN may lead to pathological fractures, intra‐oral or extra‐oral fistulae and local or systemic infection. Difficulties in mouth opening, mastication and speech frequently arise. In patients treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), osseous alterations usually appear in the body of the mandible (premolar and molar regions), whereas in those managed with brachytherapy, the lingual or buccal surfaces are affected.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Progression of ORN may lead to pathological fractures, intra‐oral or extra‐oral fistulae and local or systemic infection. Difficulties in mouth opening, mastication and speech frequently arise. In patients treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), osseous alterations usually appear in the body of the mandible (premolar and molar regions), whereas in those managed with brachytherapy, the lingual or buccal surfaces are affected.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although ablative surgery with or without reconstruction is an established therapy for small tumours staged at T 1 and T 2 created controversies exists around the role of neck dissection. Controversy also exists with radiation therapy which is a single use treatment with lifelong post treatment morbidity [3]. The management decision around small stage T1 and T2 SCC particularly thin tumours centers around either a wait-and-see policy or a selective neck dissection of the ipsilateral lymph nodes of level I-IV,which logically should be bilateral in midline lesions [4,5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complication rate after free flap reconstruction differs in the literature, depending on the previous oncological interventions, but is reported to be in range between 35 and 50% . Wound infection rates at the site of the flap and neck are reported in range from 22 to 80% . The incidence of infections in clean‐contaminated head and neck cancer surgery without prophylactic antibiotics has been reported at 30–80% …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Avoidance of complications where possible is intuitive. Avoidance of infections, which have been proven to be a predictive factor of free flap failure, putting the reconstructive result at risk and placing the patient at risk of further surgery is essential . The costs of each operation and associated support are very high …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%