Search results for: osteoradionecrosis

Authors: Petr Daniel Kovarik, Matt Kennedy, James Adams, Ajay Wilson, Andy Burns, Charles Kelly, Malcolm Jackson, Rahul Patil, Shahid Iqbal

Abstract:

Introduction: Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) is a recognised toxicity of radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). Existing literature lacks any generally accepted definition and staging system for this toxicity. Objective: The objective is to analyse the outcome of the surgical and nonsurgical treatments of ORN. Material and Method: Data on 2303 patients treated for HNC with radical or adjuvant RT or RT-chemotherapy from January 2010 - December 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Median follow-up to the whole group of patients was 37 months (range 0–148 months). Results: ORN developed in 185 patients (8.1%). The location of ORN was as follows; mandible=170, maxilla=10, and extra oral cavity=5. Multiple ORNs developed in 7 patients. 5 patients with extra oral cavity ORN were excluded from treatment analysis as the management is different. In 180 patients with oral cavity ORN, median follow-up was 59 months (range 5–148 months). ORN healed in 106 patients, treatment failed in 74 patients (improving=10, stable=43, and deteriorating=21). Median healing time was 14 months (range 3-86 months). Notani staging is available in 158 patients with jaw ORN with no previous surgery to the mandible (Notani class I=56, Notani class II=27, and Notani class III=76). 28 ORN (mandible=27, maxilla=1; Notani class I=23, Notani II=3, Notani III=1) healed spontaneously with a median healing time 7 months (range 3–46 months). In 20 patients, ORN developed after dental extraction, in 1 patient in the neomandible after radical surgery as a part of the primary treatment. In 7 patients, ORN developed and spontaneously healed in irradiated bone with no previous surgical/dental intervention. Radical resection of the ORN (segmentectomy, hemi-mandibulectomy with fibula flap) was performed in 43 patients (all mandible; Notani II=1, Notani III=39, Notani class was not established in 3 patients as ORN developed in the neomandible). 27 patients healed (63%); 15 patients failed (improving=2, stable=5, deteriorating=8). The median time from resection to healing was 6 months (range 2–30 months). 109 patients (mandible=100, maxilla=9; Notani I=3, Notani II=23, Notani III=35, Notani class was not established in 9 patients as ORN developed in the maxilla/neomandible) were treated conservatively using a combination of debridement, antibiotics and Pentoclo. 50 patients healed (46%) with a median healing time 14 months (range 3–70 months), 59 patients are recorded with persistent ORN (improving=8, stable=38, deteriorating=13). Out of 109 patients treated conservatively, 13 patients were treated with Pentoclo only (all mandible; Notani I=6, Notani II=3, Notani III=3, 1 patient with neomandible). In total, 8 patients healed (61.5%), treatment failed in 5 patients (stable=4, deteriorating=1). Median healing time was 14 months (range 4–24 months). Extra orally (n=5), 3 cases of ORN were in the auditory canal and 2 in mastoid. ORN healed in one patient (auditory canal after 32 months. Treatment failed in 4 patients (improving=3, stable=1). Conclusion: The outcome of the treatment of ORN remains in general, poor. Every effort should therefore be made to minimise the risk of development of this devastating toxicity.

Keywords: head and neck cancer, radiotherapy, osteoradionecrosis, treatment outcome

Procedia PDF Downloads 92

Authors: Sidra Suleman, Maliha Suleman, Stephen Brindley

Abstract:

Oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients plays a crucial role in the quality of life for such individuals post-treatment. Placement of dental implants or implant-retained prostheses can help restore oral function and aesthetics, which is often compromised following surgery. Conventional prosthodontic techniques can be insufficient in rehabilitating such patients due to their altered anatomy and reduced oral competence. Hence, there is a strong clinical need for the placement of dental implants. With an increasing incidence of head and neck cancer patients, the demand for such treatment is rising. Aim: The aim of the study was to determine the survival rate of dental implants in head and neck cancer patients placed at the Restorative and Maxillofacial Department, Royal Stoke University Hospital (RSUH), United Kingdom. Methodology: All patients who received dental implants between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020 were identified. Patients were excluded based on three criteria: 1) non-head and neck cancer patients, 2) no outpatient follow-up post-implant placement 3) provision of non-dental implants. Scanned paper notes and electronic records were extracted and analyzed. Implant survival was defined as fixtures that had remained in-situ / not required removal. Sample: Overall, 61 individuals were recruited from the 143 patients identified. The mean age was 64.9 years, with a range of 35 – 89 years. The sample included 37 (60.7%) males and 24 (39.3%) females. In total, 211 implants were placed, of which 40 (19.0%) were in the maxilla, 152 (72.0%) in the mandible and 19 (9.0%) in autogenous bone graft sites. Histologically 57 (93.4%) patients had squamous cell carcinoma, with 43 (70.5%) patients having either stage IVA or IVB disease. As part of treatment, 42 (68.9%) patients received radiotherapy, which was carried out post-operatively for 29 (69.0%) cases. Whereas 21 (34.4%) patients underwent chemotherapy, 13 (61.9%) of which were post-operative. The Median follow-up period was 21.9 months with a range from 0.9 – 91.4 months. During the study, 23 (37.7%) patients died and their data was censored beyond the date of death. Results: In total, four patients who had received radiotherapy had one implant failure each. Two mandibular implants failed secondary to osteoradionecrosis, and two maxillary implants did not survive as a result of failure to osseointegrate. The overall implant survival rates were 99.1% at three years and 98.1% at both 5 and 7 years. Conclusions: Although this data shows that implant failure rates are low, it highlights the difficulty in predicting which patients will be affected. Future studies involving larger cohorts are warranted to further analyze factors affecting outcomes.

Keywords: oncology, dental implants, survival, restorative

Procedia PDF Downloads 232

Authors: Sean Yao Zu Kong, Khong Yik Chew

Abstract:

Introduction: We described a case report of the successful use of advanced surgical techniques in a patient with recurrent breast cancer who underwent a wide resection including the hemi-sternum, clavicle, multiple ribs, and a lobe of the lung due to tumor involvement. This extensive resection exposed critical structures, requiring a creative approach to reconstruction. To address this complex chest wall reconstruction, a free fibula flap and a 4-zone rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap were successfully utilized. The use of a free vascularized bone flap allowed for rapid osteointegration and resistance against osteoradionecrosis after adjuvant radiation, while a four-zone tram flap allowed for reconstruction of both the chest wall and breast mound. Although limited recipient vessels made free flaps challenging, the free fibula flap served as both a bony reconstruction and vascular conduit, supercharged with the distal peroneal artery and veins of the peroneal artery from the fibula graft. Our approach highlights the potential of advanced surgical techniques to improve outcomes in complex cases of chest wall reconstruction in patients with recurrent breast cancer, which is becoming increasingly relevant as breast cancer incidence rates increases. Case presentation: This report describes a successful reconstruction of a patient with recurrent breast cancer who required extensive resection, including the anterior chest wall, clavicle, and sternoclavicular joint. Challenges arose due to the loss of accessory muscles and the non-rigid rib cage, which could lead to compromised ventilation and instability. A free fibula osteocutaneous flap and a four-zone TRAM flap with vascular supercharging were utilized to achieve long-term stability and function. The patient has since fully recovered, and during the review, both flaps remained viable, and chest mound reconstruction was satisfactory. A planned nipple/areolar reconstruction was offered pending the patient’s decision after adjuvant radiotherapy. Conclusion: In conclusion, this case report highlights the successful use of innovative surgical techniques in addressing a complex case of recurrent breast cancer requiring extensive resection and radical reconstruction. Our approach, utilized a combination of a free fibula flap and a 4-zone rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap, demonstrates the potential for advanced techniques in chest wall reconstruction to minimize complications and ensure long-term stability and function. As the incidence of breast cancer continues to rise, it is crucial that healthcare professionals explore and utilize innovative techniques to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Keywords: free fibula flap, rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap, post-adjuvant radiotherapy, reconstructive surgery, malignancy

Procedia PDF Downloads 62