Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 3061–3069 | Cite as

Comprehensive Analysis of Functional Outcomes and Survival After Microvascular Reconstruction of Glossectomy Defects

  • Edward I. ChangEmail author
  • Peirong Yu
  • Roman J. Skoracki
  • Jun Liu
  • Matthew M. Hanasono
Reconstructive Oncology

Abstract

Background

Few studies on tongue reconstruction provide a comprehensive, multidisciplinary analysis examining defect size, flap selection, function, and long-term survival. This report presents the largest study in the literature evaluating free flap reconstruction after glossectomy.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing free flap glossectomy reconstruction from 2000 to 2012 was performed.

Results

In this review, 268 patients were identified. Resections involving the tongue only included 59 partial glossectomies, 86 hemiglossectomies, 28 subtotal glossectomies, and 24 total glossectomies. Glossectomies performed with mandibulectomies were analyzed independently for speech and swallowing function (32 partial glossectomies, 18 hemiglossectomies, 8 subtotal glossectomies, and 13 total glossectomies with mandibulectomy). A total of 299 free flaps were performed, with 30 patients receiving two free flaps. Multivariate analysis demonstrating smoking (p = 0.018), composite resections (p < 0.001), and larger resections (total and subtotal glossectomies; p < 0.001) were associated with significantly worse speech results. Advanced age (p = 0.002), radiation (p = 0.003), and larger or composite resections had significantly worse swallowing function (p < 0.001). Patients with a persistent tracheostomy had significantly worse speech and swallowing function (p < 0.001), whereas innervated flaps were associated with superior speech (p = 0.049) and better swallowing function (p = 0.004). The surgical complication rate was 23.5 %, with only one total flap loss. Tumor stage (p = 0.003), positive margins (p < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.023), and chemotherapy (p < 0.001) were associated with significantly worse overall survival. The median overall survival time was 50.5 months (range 39–79 months).

Conclusions

Although comorbidities and the extent of resection impair both speech and swallowing, reconstruction, particularly with innervated free flaps, still affords the majority of patients’ reasonable function.

Keywords

Free Flap Free Flap Reconstruction Rectus Abdominus Myocutaneous Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery Soft Tissue Flap 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Disclosure

The authors have no commercial associations or financial disclosures that might pose or create a conflict of interest with information presented in this manuscript. No funding was received for the work presented in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Ruhl CM, Gleich LL, Gluckman JL. Survival, function, and quality of life after total glossectomy. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:1316–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donaldson RC, Skelly M, Paletta FX. Total glossectomy for cancer. Am J Surg. 1968;116:585–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu P, Robb GL. Reconstruction for total and near-total glossectomy defects. Clin Plast Surg. 2005;32:411–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engel H, Huang JJ, Lin CY, et al. A strategic approach for tongue reconstruction to achieve predictable and improved functional and aesthetic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1967–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yanai C, Kikutani T, Adachi M, et al. Functional outcome after total and subtotal glossectomy with free flap reconstruction. Head Neck. 2008;30:909–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu P, Robb GL. Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the anterolateral thigh flap: a clinical and functional outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1845–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanasono MM, Weinstock YE, Yu P. Reconstruction of extensive head and neck defects with multiple simultaneous free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1739–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zafereo ME, Weber RS, Lewin JS, et al. Complications and functional outcomes following complex oropharyngeal reconstruction. Head Neck. 2010;32:1003–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun J, Weng Y, Li J, et al. Analysis of determinants on speech function after glossectomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:1944–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Vicente JC, de Villalaín L, Torre A, et al. Microvascular free tissue transfer for tongue reconstruction after hemiglossectomy: a functional assessment of radial forearm versus anterolateral thigh flap. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:2270–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kropf N, Cordeiro CN, McCarthy CM, et al. The vertically oriented free myocutaneous gracilis flap in head and neck reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;61:632–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddock NT, DeLacure MD, Saadeh PB. Functional reconstruction of glossectomy defects: the vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous neotongue. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2008;24:343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thankappan K, Kuriakose MA, Chatni SS, et al. Lateral arm free flap for oral tongue reconstruction: an analysis of surgical details, morbidity, and functional and aesthetic outcome. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yun IS, Lee DW, Lee WJ, et al. Correlation of neotongue volume changes with functional outcomes after long-term follow-up of total glossectomy. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:111–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kimata Y, Sakuraba M, Hishinuma S, et al. Analysis of the relations between the shape of the reconstructed tongue and postoperative functions after subtotal or total glossectomy. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:905–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazi R, Johnson C, Prasad V, et al. Quality-of-life outcome measures following partial glossectomy: assessment using the UW-QOL scale. J Cancer Res Ther. 2008;4:116–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown L, Rieger JM, Harris J, et al. A longitudinal study of functional outcomes after surgical resection and microvascular reconstruction for oral cancer: tongue mobility and swallowing function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2690–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dziegielewski PT, Ho ML, Rieger J, et al. Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation and free flap reconstruction: objective functional outcomes and systematic review of the literature. Laryngoscope. 2012;123:140–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vega C, León X, Cervelli D, et al. Total or subtotal glossectomy with microsurgical reconstruction: functional and oncological results. Microsurgery. 2011;31:517–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, et al. Postoperative complications and functional results after total glossectomy with microvascular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1028–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kimata Y, Uchiyarna K, Ebihara S, et al. Comparison of innervated and noninnervated free flaps in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1 999;104:1307–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyd B, Mulholland S, Gullane P, et al. Reinnervated lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurosome flaps in oral reconstruction: are we making sense? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;93:1350–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Urken ML, Biller H. A new bilobed design for the sensate radial forearm flap to preserve tongue mobility following significant glossectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1994;120:26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu P. Reinnervated anterolateral thigh flap for tongue reconstruction. Head Neck. 2004;26:1038–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Biglioli F, Liviero F, Frigerio A, et al. Function of the sensate free forearm flap after partial glossectomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006;34:332–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santamaria E, Wei FC, Chen IH, et al. Sensation recovery on innervated radial forearm flap for hemiglossectomy reconstruction by using different recipient nerves. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:450–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Longo B, Pagnoni M, Ferri G, et al. The mushroom-shaped anterolateral thigh perforator flap for subtotal tongue reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:656–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen WL, Zhang DM, Yang ZH, et al. Functional hemitongue reconstruction using innervated supraclavicular fasciocutaneous island flaps with the cervical plexus and reinnervated supraclavicular fasciocutaneous island flaps with neurorrhaphy of the cervical plexus and lingual nerve. Head Neck. 2014;36:66–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsue TT, Desyatnikova SS, Deleyiannis FW, et al. Comparison of cost and function in reconstruction of the posterior oral cavity and oropharynx: free vs pedicled soft tissue transfer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123:731–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hanasono MM, Friel MT, Klem C, et al. Impact of reconstructive microsurgery in patients with advanced oral cavity cancers. Head Neck. 2009;31:1289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward I. Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peirong Yu
    • 1
  • Roman J. Skoracki
    • 1
  • Jun Liu
    • 1
  • Matthew M. Hanasono
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic SurgeryThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations