Comparison of Visor Access Approach with Lower LIP Split Approach in Resection of Oral Cancers

Vyshnavi, V.; Mohiyuddin, S. M. Azeem; Mohammadi, Kouser

doi:10.1007/s12070-022-03166-2

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the most recent study comparing the two approaches by Vyshnavi [ 6 ], it was noted that the surgery duration was longer in the visor group, but the adequacy of exposure, safety margins, surgical outcomes related to healing, and complications were similar in both groups. Additionally, in 2018, Leslie E. Cohen et al [ 7 ] mentioned that there were no significant differences observed in surgical site complications or surgery duration between the two approaches, and both methods can be seen as effective for tumor removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrospective analysis on prognosis of oral cancer patients according to surgical approaches for effective cancer ablation: swing approach versus visor approach

Kim,

Yang,

Lee

et al. 2024

Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background For the surgical treatment of oral cancer, it is sometimes necessary to expand intraoral access within the oral cavity. The “swing approach” that involves lip splitting of the mandible and temporary mandibular osteotomy and the “visor approach” that does not split the lower lip and mandible are mainly used. This study analyzed postoperative outcomes such as complications, recurrence rate, and survival rate by these two approaches. The goal of this study is to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients using these two approaches, to propose effective perioperative management for oral cancer surgery, and to compare the prognosis of oral cancer patients. Materials and methods From 2005 to 2020, 29 patients who underwent surgery at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Pusan National University Dental Hospital for oral cancer lesions occurred in the mandible, floor of mouth, and tongue were selected for the study. Based on the surgical approach used, a chart review was conducted on various prognostic clinical factors such as the patients’ sex and age, primary site, TNM stage, histopathologic grade, recurrence and metastasis, postoperative survival rate, adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy, satisfaction with aesthetics/function/swallowing, length of hospital stay, tracheostomy and its duration, and neck dissection and its type. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) through Fisher’s exact t-test. Result There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of clinical and pathological findings, such as survival rate, the need for adjuvant therapies, and the local recurrence rate. Although better outcomes were observed in terms of function, aesthetics, and postoperative complications in the group with visor approach, there was still no statistically significant difference between two groups. However, the duration of hospital stay was shorter in the visor approach group. Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference in clinical prognostic factors between the swing approach and the visor approach. Therefore, when choosing between the two approaches for the ablation of oral cancer, it is considered to select the surgical priority approach that can be easy access based on the size and location of the lesion. The visor approach had advantages of aesthetics and healing period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Vyshnavi’s study [ 6 ], the most common complication in both groups was found to be the orocutaneous fistula, indicating wound infection. In a study by Cliento BW et al [ 5 ], it was mentioned that most of the patients who developed fistulas had undergone postoperative radiation therapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%