The influence of intraoperative frozen section analysis in patients with total or extended maxillectomy

Augmented Reality and Intraoperative Navigation in Sinonasal Malignancies: A Preclinical Study

Objective

To report the first use of a novel projected augmented reality (AR) system in open sinonasal tumor resections in preclinical models and to compare the AR approach with an advanced intraoperative navigation (IN) system.

Methods

Four tumor models were created. Five head and neck surgeons participated in the study performing virtual osteotomies. Unguided, AR, IN, and AR + IN simulations were performed. Statistical comparisons between approaches were obtained. Intratumoral cut rate was the main outcome. The groups were also compared in terms of percentage of intratumoral, close, adequate, and excessive distances from the tumor. Information on a wearable gaze tracker headset and NASA Task Load Index questionnaire results were analyzed as well.

Results

A total of 335 cuts were simulated. Intratumoral cuts were observed in 20.7%, 9.4%, 1.2,% and 0% of the unguided, AR, IN, and AR + IN simulations, respectively (p < 0.0001). The AR was superior than the unguided approach in univariate and multivariate models. The percentage of time looking at the screen during the procedures was 55.5% for the unguided approaches and 0%, 78.5%, and 61.8% in AR, IN, and AR + IN, respectively (p < 0.001). The combined approach significantly reduced the screen time compared with the IN procedure alone.

Conclusion

We reported the use of a novel AR system for oncological resections in open sinonasal approaches, with improved margin delineation compared with unguided techniques. AR improved the gaze-toggling drawback of IN. Further refinements of the AR system are needed before translating our experience to clinical practice.

Performance of Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cancer Surgery: A Review of Literature

Introduction

Achieving adequate resection margins during oral cancer surgery is important to improve patient prognosis. Surgeons have the delicate task of achieving an adequate resection and safeguarding satisfactory remaining function and acceptable physical appearance, while relying on visual inspection, palpation, and preoperative imaging. Intraoperative assessment of resection margins (IOARM) is a multidisciplinary effort, which can guide towards adequate resections. Different forms of IOARM are currently used, but it is unknown how accurate these methods are in predicting margin status. Therefore, this review aims to investigate: 1) the IOARM methods currently used during oral cancer surgery, 2) their performance, and 3) their clinical relevance.

Methods

A literature search was performed in the following databases: Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar (from inception to January 23, 2020). IOARM performance was assessed in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in predicting margin status, and the reduction of inadequate margins. Clinical relevance (i.e., overall survival, local recurrence, regional recurrence, local recurrence-free survival, disease-specific survival, adjuvant therapy) was recorded if available.

Results

Eighteen studies were included in the review, of which 10 for soft tissue and 8 for bone. For soft tissue, defect-driven IOARM-studies showed the average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 90.9%, 47.6%, and 84.4%, and specimen-driven IOARM-studies showed, 91.5%, 68.4%, and 96.7%, respectively. For bone, specimen-driven IOARM-studies performed better than defect-driven, with an average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 96.6%, 81.8%, and 98%, respectively. For both, soft tissue and bone, IOARM positively impacts patient outcome.

Conclusion

IOARM improves margin-status, especially the specimen-driven IOARM has higher performance compared to defect-driven IOARM. However, this conclusion is limited by the low number of studies reporting performance results for defect-driven IOARM. The current methods suffer from inherent disadvantages, namely their subjective character and the fact that only a small part of the resection surface can be assessed in a short time span, causing sampling errors. Therefore, a solution should be sought in the field of objective techniques that can rapidly assess the whole resection surface.

Diagnostic value of intraoperative bone marrow assessment for bone margins in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A clear bone margin is essential for complete resection of the bone-involved tumour, but the evaluation of hard tissue takes time and is impractical intraoperatively. Bone marrow assessment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of intraoperative bone marrow assessment for bone margins. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1990 and 2017. A systematic review was conducted. After quality assessment, 10 articles with 11 cohorts and 404 patients were identified. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures were pooled for meta-analysis; the estimates for intraoperative bone marrow assessment were as follows: sensitivity 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.93), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 109.79 (95% CI 22.99-524.34), negative likelihood ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.42), and diagnostic odds ratio 241.82 (95% CI 90.33-647.38). Furthermore, sensitivity and specificity at the summary operating point of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.82 and 0.99, respectively, and the area under the curve was 0.99. Intraoperative bone marrow assessment was investigated by meta-analysis and shown to have a high level of overall accuracy for the diagnosis of bone margins.