A comparison of aesthetic, functional and patient subjective outcomes following lip-split mandibulotomy and mandibular lingual releasing access procedures

A comparison of tongue and soft palate squamous cell carcinoma treated by primary surgery in terms of survival and quality of life outcomes

“…This was found in the soft palate functional study in which speech intelligibility and a video swallow were used in conjunction with the UW-QoL swallowing and speech questions 4 . In a similar way the specific questions of appearance, speech and swallowing were used with photography, speech intelligibility and tongue movement in a comparison of access procedures to the oral cavity, and again the questionnaire showed equivalent results 5 . In addition ROGERS et al 17,18 compared the questionnaire to a functional outcome score arriving at the same conclusion that the questionnaire is a reliable measure of function as well as health-related quality of life.…”

Advances in Quality of Life Research Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients

“…These findings did not account for group differences in location of the resection or in the type of free-flap reconstruction. Finally, lip-split mandibulotomy was compared with a mandibular lingual-releasing access procedure for patients with small anterior oral cancers, most of whom were assessed several years after surgery [38]. There were no significant group differences with respect to clinician-rated functional capacity or patient-rated and observer-rated appearance.…”

Mandibular lingual release versus mandibular lip-split approach for expanded resection of middle–late tongue cancer: A case-control study

“…In contrast, in the MLR approach, the lower lip and the mandible remain intact, and the mylohyoid muscles and hyomandibular furrow are incised to retract the tongue from the submandibular triangle for resection. Findings in the current literature are contradictory with regard to whether the MLR approach is superior to the MS approach in terms of surgical effectiveness, morbidity, functional recovery, esthetic appearance, survival, and QoL, or vice versa (Devine et al, 2001;Cantu et al, 2006;Dziegielewski et al, 2010;Karatzanis et al, 2012;Tei et al, 2012).…”