Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 501–504 | Cite as

Margin Status and Duration of Surgery in Resection of Tongue Carcinoma with Ultrasound Coagulation Device: a Comparative Study

  • Karthik N. Rao
  • Mohan Jagade
  • Vitthal D. Kale
  • Devkumar Rengaraja
  • Amol Hekare
Original Article


Tongue is one of the most common subsites involved by oral cancer. Improved surgical care and adjuvant therapy, along with better rehabilitation has significantly improved long-term survival and quality of life in patients with oral cancer. Primary surgical treatment is the preferred modality of treatment in cancers of the oral tongue. Although the surgical techniques have remained unchanged, various devices have been used to aid primary tumour resection, with a view to reduce bleeding and scarring. The purpose of this study is to compare resection of oral tongue tumours using ultrasonic coagulation device with conventional electrodiathermy. This study was conducted to compare histological margins and duration of surgery between ultrasonic coagulation device and electrodiathermy in the resection of oral tongue tumours. A retrospective analysis was performed comprising patients undergoing wide excision for squamous cell carcinoma of the lateral tongue, with either ultrasonic coagulation device or conventional electrodiathermy at Our Institute in Mumbai, India, from October 2015 to December 2016. Single factor ANOVA with the level of significance set at 95% and alpha value of 0.05. Patients who underwent excision with ultrasonic coagulation device better histologically tumour-free margins (except posterior margin) (p values—anterior margin, posterior margin, lateral margin and deep margin 0.0045, 0.59, 0.011 and 0.00013 respectively) and lesser operative time when compared with conventional electrodiathermy. Ultrasonic coagulation device was effective in providing adequate oncologically safe margins in carcinoma tongue.


Electrodiathermy Tongue cancer Tumour margin Ultrasonic coagulation device 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Thomas G, Muwonge R, Thara S, Mathew B et al (2005) Effect of screening on oral cancer mortality in Kerala, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9475):1927–1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kulkarani MR (2013) Head and neck cancer burden in India. Int J Head Neck Surg 4:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2011) NCCN guidelines and clinical resources. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Fort WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Metternich FU, Wenzel S, Sagowski C, Ja kel T, Koch U (2002) The “Ultracision Harmonic Scalpel” ultrasound activated scalpel: initial results in surgery of the tongue and soft palate. HNO 50:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernier J, Cooper J, Pajak T, van Glabbeke M, Bourhis J, Forastiere A et al (2005) Defining risk levels in locally advanced head and neck cancers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postoperative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck 27(10):843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scholl P, Byers RM, Batsakis JG, Wolf P, Santini H (1986) Microscopic cut-through of cancer in the surgical treatment of squamous carcinoma of the tongue: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Am J Surg 152:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandwein-Gensler M, Teixeira MS, Lewis CM (2005) Oral squa- mous cell carcinoma: histologic risk assessment, but not margin status, is strongly predictive of local disease-free and overall survival. Am J Surg Pathol 29:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sparano A, Weinstein G, Chailian A, Yodul M, Weber R (2004) Multivariate predictors of occult neck metastasis in early oral tongue cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belli G, Fantini C, Ciciliano F et al (2003) Pancreaticoduodenectomy in portal hypertension: use of the Ligasure. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 10:215–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ou CS, Harper A, Liu YH, Rowbotham R (2002) Laparoscopic myomectomy technique: use of colpotomy and the harmonic scalpel. J Reprod Med 47:849–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Clifton MA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 89:154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cristalli G, Mercante G, Covello R, Sperduti I, Cristalli MP, Spriano G (2012 Dec) Histopathological assessment in glossectomy: harmonic shears versus monopolar electrosurgery pilot study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(6):1076–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology and Head Neck SurgeryGrant Medical College and Sir JJ Group of HospitalsMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations