Advertisement

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 459–464 | Cite as

Safety of resection margins in CAD/CAM-guided primarily reconstructed oral squamous cell carcinoma—a retrospective case series

  • Elisabeth Goetze
  • Maximillian Moergel
  • Matthias Gielisch
  • Peer W. KämmererEmail author
Original Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

After resection of malignancies of the jaws, CAD/CAM procedures have become standard for primary bony reconstruction. Even so, these techniques may limit surgical resection safety. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine osseous as well as soft tissue resection margins after CAD/CAM-guided tumor resections and reconstructions.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients treated with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) from 2014 to 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria were CAD/CAM-guided osseous resection and primary reconstruction. Evaluation was performed for histological confirmed resection margins (hard and soft tissue) as well as recurrence of the disease related to the resection status.

Results

In 46 patients, bony resection margins were classified: tumor free (R0 41/46), microscopical invasion (R1 1/46), and close margin (R0 < 4 mm 4/46) respectively for soft tissue 29/46 tumor free (R0), 7/46 close margin (R0 < 4 mm), 5/46 R1, and 4/46 could not be further determined (Rx). Fourteen patients (14/46) showed recurrent disease (2/46 locoregional) without association with the bony resection margin status. Recurrence occurred predominantly (13/46) in high-staged tumor patients. R1/close margin/Rx resection of the soft tissue resulted in a significant earlier recurrence when compared with R0 resection.

Conclusion

CAD/CAM procedure allows safe tumor resection with the profit of a guided and accurate reconstruction. In contrast to positive soft tissue margins, positive bony resection margins did not increase recurrence parameters.

Keywords

Microvascular reconstruction Primary reconstruction CAD/CAM guided Resection margins Cutting guides 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Valdez JA, Brennan MT (2018) Impact of oral cancer on quality of life. Dent Clin N Am 62(1):143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hidalgo DA (1989) Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 84(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wei FC, Celik N, Yang WG, Chen IH, Chang YM, Chen HC (2003) Complications after reconstruction by plate and soft-tissue free flap in composite mandibular defects and secondary salvage reconstruction with osteocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(1):37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerressen M, Pastaschek CI, Riediger D, Hilgers RD, Hölzle F, Noroozi N, Ghassemi A (2013) Microsurgical free flap reconstructions of head and neck region in 406 cases: a 13-year experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(3):628–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodby KA, Turin S, Jacobs RJ, Cruz JF, Hassid VJ, Kolokythas A, Antony AK (2014) Advances in oncologic head and neck reconstruction: systematic review and future considerations of virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(9):1171–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goetze E, Gielisch M, Moergel M, al-Nawas B (2017) Accelerated workflow for primary jaw reconstruction with microvascular fibula graft. 3D Printing in Medicine 3(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goetze E, Kämmerer PW, al-Nawas B, Moergel M (2019) Integration of perforator vessels in CAD/CAM free fibula graft planning - a clinical feasability study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg AcceptedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Binahmed A, Nason RW, Abdoh AA (2007) The clinical significance of the positive surgical margin in oral cancer. Oral Oncol 43(8):780–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AWMF (2013) Leitlinie/Guideline. Das Mundhöhlenkarzinom: S3-Leitlinie. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 68(1)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerawala C, Roques T, Jeannon JP, Bisase B (2016) Oral cavity and lip cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 130(S2):S83–S89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rustemeyer J, Sari-Rieger A, Melenberg A, Busch A (2015) Comparison of intraoperative time measurements between osseous reconstructions with free fibula flaps applying computer-aided designed/computer-aided manufactured and conventional techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg 19(3):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nason RW, Binahmed A, Pathak KA, Abdoh AA, Sándor GKB (2009) What is the adequate margin of surgical resection in oral cancer? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107(5):625–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pang JH, Brooke S, Kubik M, Ferris R, Dhima M, Hanasono M, Wang E, Solari M (2018) Staged reconstruction (delayed-immediate) of the maxillectomy defect using CAD/CAM technology. J Reconstr Microsurg 34(3):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gouin F et al (2014) Computer-assisted planning and patient-specific instruments for bone tumor resection within the pelvis: a series of 11 patients. Sarcoma 2014:842709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellanova L, Paul L, Docquier PL (2013) Surgical guides (patient-specific instruments) for pediatric tibial bone sarcoma resection and allograft reconstruction. Sarcoma 2013:787653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Witjes MJH, Schepers RH, Kraeima J (2018) Impact of 3D virtual planning on reconstruction of mandibular and maxillary surgical defects in head and neck oncology. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 26(2):108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ash CS, Nason RW, Abdoh AA, Cohen MA (2000) Prognostic implications of mandibular invasion in oral cancer. Head Neck 22(8):794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ettl T, el-Gindi A, Hautmann M, Gosau M, Weber F, Rohrmeier C, Gerken M, Müller S, Reichert T, Klingelhöffer C (2016) Positive frozen section margins predict local recurrence in R0-resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Oral Oncol 55:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gauthier P et al (2010) Complete frozen section margins for cancer of the tongue: part 1: animal experience. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 39(1):12–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andrade WN, Lipa JE, Novak CB, Grover H, Bang C, Gilbert RW, Neligan PC (2008) Comparison of reconstructive procedures in primary versus secondary mandibular reconstruction. Head Neck 30(3):341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Camuzard O, Dassonville O, Ettaiche M, Chamorey E, Poissonnet G, Berguiga R, Leysalle A, Benezery K, Peyrade F, Saada E, Hechema R, Sudaka A, Haudebourg J, Demard F, Santini J, Bozec A (2017) Primary radical ablative surgery and fibula free-flap reconstruction for T4 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with mandibular invasion: oncologic and functional results and their predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(1):441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Namin AW, Bruggers SD, Panuganti BA, Christopher KM, Walker RJ, Varvares MA (2015) Efficacy of bone marrow cytologic evaluations in detecting occult cancellous invasion. Laryngoscope 125(5):E173–E179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic SurgeryUniversity Medical Centre MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations