Role of reconstructive surgery in the management of head and neck cancer: A national outcomes analysis of 11,841 reconstructions

Risk factors for evaluating early mortality after microvascular reconstruction of head and neck cancers

BACKGROUND

Free tissue transfer reconstruction carries significant complication rates in surgical head and neck oncology. A registry-based approach offers a possibility to investigate the factors affecting increased morbidity and early mortality, that is, death within 6 months of treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective registry review was conducted on a series of 317 consecutive microvascular free tissue transfers in head and neck cancer patients performed during 2013-2017 at the Helsinki University Hospital (Helsinki, Finland). All surviving patients had a minimum follow-up of 2 years (range 24-84 months).

RESULTS

Overall, 36 (11.4%) early deaths occurred in this series. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients aged 75 years and older (p = 0.019), Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) score of 3 (p = 0.048), tumor class T3 (p = 0.005), lymph node class N2 (p = 0.014), or thrombocyte count of 360 (× 10⁹ L) or more (p = 0.001) were more likely to die within 6 months of surgery. Of these 36 patients, 27 (75%) had a complication warranting hospital care and most (n = 22, 61%) had several complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative mortality most frequently affects patients aged 75 years and above, with a high ACE-27 score, advanced tumor stage, or high thrombocyte count. Therefore, preoperative assessment and patient selection should have a crucial role in this patient population.

Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction in an Academic versus a Community Setting

BACKGROUND

 Head and neck free flap reconstructions are complex procedures requiring extensive resources, and have the potential to be highly morbid. As such, it is imperative that they should be performed in an appropriate setting, optimizing outcomes while limiting morbidity. The aim of this study is to identify any disparities in the treatment outcomes of patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction by a single surgeon in an academic versus a community hospital setting.

METHODS

 A retrospective review of all patients who underwent head and neck free flap reconstruction for any indication by a single surgeon from 2009 to 2019 was conducted. All surgeries were performed at one of two hospitals: one academic medical center and one community hospital. Demographics and rates of partial or complete flap failure, medical complications, surgical complications, mortality, and other secondary outcomes were compared between the two settings.

RESULTS

 Ninety-two patients who underwent head and neck free flap reconstruction were included. Fifty-seven (62%) of free flap reconstructions were performed in the academic medical center, while 35 (38%) were performed in the community hospital. There were no significant differences in complete flap loss, either intraoperative or postoperative (p = 0.5060), partial flap loss (p = 0.5827), postoperative surgical complications (p = 0.2930), or medical complications (p = 0.7960) between groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0% (n = 0) at the university hospital as compared with 5.7% at the community hospital (p = 0.0681). The mean operative time was 702.3 minutes at the university hospital and 606.3 minutes at the community hospital (p = 0.0080).

CONCLUSION

 Head and neck free flap surgery can be performed safely in either an academic or a community setting, with no difference in primary outcomes of surgery. Preferential selection of either treatment setting should be based on consideration of patient needs and availability of auxiliary specialty services.

Potential of the common facial vein as a recipient vein in free flap reconstruction

Recipient vessel selection for free flap reconstruction depends on numerous factors and may be limited due to previous treatment. Currently, little evidence is available regarding the anatomy and reconstructive potential of the common facial vein (CFV), a tributary of the internal jugular vein (IJV). The aim of this project was to determine the diameter of the CFV at various points along its course and identify suitable landmarks to locate the CFV, to consider the vessel as a potential recipient vein in free flap reconstruction. A cadaveric study was conducted by dissecting 17 embalmed neck hemi-sections in the Keele University Medical School Anatomy Suite. Our intent was to describe the gross anatomy of the CFV in terms of diameter and relation to surrounding structures. We found the mean diameter of the CFV to be 5.9 (± 1.8) mm at its termination into the IJV. We also found the mean distance of the CFV termination into the IJV from the level of the hyoid bone was 8.0 (± 4.0) mm. The diameter of the CFV could accommodate for end-to-end anastomoses to be formed with the IJV system. The diameter also suggests the vein to be appropriate for microvascular anastomosis with commonly used free flaps. The results propose that the CFV can be found within 12 mm of the level of the hyoid bone, knowledge of which could reduce operative time and site morbidity. These findings support the CFV as a potential recipient vein in free flap reconstruction of the head and neck.

Breaking Down Silos: Collaboration in Head and Neck Reconstruction Research

BACKGROUND

 Collaboration has been shown to be beneficial when we have complex problems and highly specialized groups, such as in head and neck reconstruction. Otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and oral maxillofacial surgeons perform head and neck reconstruction research. While the specialties represent unique backgrounds, the degree of interdisciplinary collaboration and subtopic focus is unknown. We sought to describe the frequency of interinstitutional interdisciplinary collaboration and examine the association of specialty with research subtopics.

METHODS

 Oral presentations from 2014 to 2018 focused on head and neck reconstruction or associated principles at the main reconstructive academic meetings in otolaryngology (American Head and Neck Society), plastic surgery (American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery), and oral maxillofacial surgery (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) were reviewed. Author specialty and institution data were recorded. All abstracts were assigned a research subtopic, chosen based on identified themes. Subtopic frequencies among the specialties were compared.

RESULTS

 Thirteen of 88 (15%) US institutions participate in interdisciplinary collaboration in head and neck reconstruction research. Of the remaining institutions, 23 (31%) have researchers performing parallel work and not collaborating. Certain research subtopics were more often presented by each specialty, representing differing interests.

CONCLUSION

 Collaboration among head and neck reconstruction research at the US institutions is low compared with the potential. Specialties focus on different research subtopics, and therefore can benefit from working together.

Best Practice in Surgical Treatment of Malignant Head and Neck Tumors

Purpose of review: Defining the best practice of surgical care for patients affected by malignant head and neck tumors is of great importance. In this review we aim to describe the evolution of “best practice” guidelines in the context of quality-of-care measures and discuss current evidence on “best practice” for the surgical treatment of cancers of the sino-nasal tract, skull base, aero-digestive tract, and the neck.

Recent findings: Current evidence based on certain structure and outcome indicators, but mostly based on process indicators already helps defining the framework of “Best practice” for head and neck cancer surgery. However, many aspects of surgical treatment still require in-depth research.

Summary: While a framework of “Best practice” strategies already exists for the conduction of the surgical treatment of head and neck cancers, many questions still require additional research in particular in case of rare histologies in the head and neck region.

Secondary free tissue transfer in head and neck reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The incidence of head and neck cancer (H&N) continues to increase together with the need for reconstructive surgery. Head and Neck microsurgeons are likely to encounter challenging secondary free flap surgery on the background of failed primary flaps, radiotherapy treatment or recurrence. The aim of this study was to review our experience of treating such cases in a tertiary referral centre in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing sequential free flap surgery for head and neck defects in our unit during 2010-2017. Parameters recorded included indication for surgery, type and sequence of reconstruction, recipient vessel use and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

We identified 17 patients who underwent 39 free tissue transfers for the reconstruction of head and neck defects (five transfers were performed at other units). The radial forearm and anterolateral thigh flaps were most commonly used. Almost a quarter of patients underwent three or more free flap reconstructive procedures. In over a third, the same vein and artery were used for subsequent anastomoses, and we used five vein grafts over 68 anastomoses. There were no flap failures recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary free flaps in the head and neck are required for a variety of aetiologies and can have success rates similar to those for primary free tissue transfers with minimal morbidity and mortality. Free tissue transfer is the best reconstructive option in H&N patients and should still be considered the first choice option in salvage cases until the patient's donor sites have been depleted.

Surgery in head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. Surgery is one of the key modalities used in head and neck cancer treatment. Recent advances and a greater awareness of the short- and long-term toxicities associated with non-surgical modalities and newer technologies that permit minimal access resections have led to a resurgence in surgery. This paper provides an overview of the role of surgery in head and neck cancer practice.

Impact of the method and success of pharyngeal reconstruction on the outcome of treating laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers with pharyngolaryngectomy: A national analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of cancers that arise from or invade the hypopharynx presents major reconstructive challenges. Reconstructive failure exposes the airway and neck vessels to digestive contents.

METHODS

We performed a national N = near-all analysis of the administrative dataset to identify pharyngolaryngectomies in England between 2002 and 2012. Information about morbidity, pharyngeal closure method and post-operative complications was derived.

RESULTS

There were 1589 predominantly male (78%) patients whose mean age at surgery was 62 years. The commonest morbidities were hypertension (24%) and ischemic heart disease (11%). For 232 (15%) patients, pharyngolaryngectomy was performed during an emergency admission. The pharynx was closed primarily in 551 patients, with skin or muscle free or pedicled flaps in 755 patients and with jejunum and gastric pull-up in 123 and 160 patients, respectively. In-hospital mortality rate was 6% and was significantly higher in the gastric pull-up group (11%). Reconstructive failure had an odds ratio of 6.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-16.1] for in-hospital death. The five-year survival was 57% and age, morbidities, emergency surgery, gastric pull-up, major acute cardiovascular events, renal failure and reconstructive failure independently worsened prognosis. Patients who underwent pharyngeal reconstruction with radial forearm or anterolateral thigh flaps had lower mortality rates than patients who had jejunum flap reconstruction (hazard ratio = 1.50 [95% CI 1.03-2.19]) or gastric pull-up (hazard ratio = 1.92 [95% CI 1.32-2.80]).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharyngolaryngectomy carries a high degree of risk of morbidity and mortality. Reconstructive failure worsens short- and long-term prognosis, and the use of cutaneous free flaps appears to improve survival.