Safety of resection margins in CAD/CAM-guided primarily reconstructed oral squamous cell carcinoma—a retrospective case series
- 37 Downloads
After resection of malignancies of the jaws, CAD/CAM procedures have become standard for primary bony reconstruction. Even so, these techniques may limit surgical resection safety. Therefore, the aim of the study was to examine osseous as well as soft tissue resection margins after CAD/CAM-guided tumor resections and reconstructions.
A retrospective analysis of patients treated with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) from 2014 to 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria were CAD/CAM-guided osseous resection and primary reconstruction. Evaluation was performed for histological confirmed resection margins (hard and soft tissue) as well as recurrence of the disease related to the resection status.
In 46 patients, bony resection margins were classified: tumor free (R0 41/46), microscopical invasion (R1 1/46), and close margin (R0 < 4 mm 4/46) respectively for soft tissue 29/46 tumor free (R0), 7/46 close margin (R0 < 4 mm), 5/46 R1, and 4/46 could not be further determined (Rx). Fourteen patients (14/46) showed recurrent disease (2/46 locoregional) without association with the bony resection margin status. Recurrence occurred predominantly (13/46) in high-staged tumor patients. R1/close margin/Rx resection of the soft tissue resulted in a significant earlier recurrence when compared with R0 resection.
CAD/CAM procedure allows safe tumor resection with the profit of a guided and accurate reconstruction. In contrast to positive soft tissue margins, positive bony resection margins did not increase recurrence parameters.
KeywordsMicrovascular reconstruction Primary reconstruction CAD/CAM guided Resection margins Cutting guides
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Rodby KA, Turin S, Jacobs RJ, Cruz JF, Hassid VJ, Kolokythas A, Antony AK (2014) Advances in oncologic head and neck reconstruction: systematic review and future considerations of virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(9):1171–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Goetze E, Kämmerer PW, al-Nawas B, Moergel M (2019) Integration of perforator vessels in CAD/CAM free fibula graft planning - a clinical feasability study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg AcceptedGoogle Scholar
- 9.AWMF (2013) Leitlinie/Guideline. Das Mundhöhlenkarzinom: S3-Leitlinie. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 68(1)Google Scholar
- 11.Rustemeyer J, Sari-Rieger A, Melenberg A, Busch A (2015) Comparison of intraoperative time measurements between osseous reconstructions with free fibula flaps applying computer-aided designed/computer-aided manufactured and conventional techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg 19(3):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Camuzard O, Dassonville O, Ettaiche M, Chamorey E, Poissonnet G, Berguiga R, Leysalle A, Benezery K, Peyrade F, Saada E, Hechema R, Sudaka A, Haudebourg J, Demard F, Santini J, Bozec A (2017) Primary radical ablative surgery and fibula free-flap reconstruction for T4 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with mandibular invasion: oncologic and functional results and their predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(1):441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar