An alternative to skin graft for superficial surgical defect in oral cancer surgery
Introduction: After surgery for oral cavity cancer, superficial surgical defects are usually covered with a skin graft that can be harvested with different thicknesses depending on the reconstructive need. Despite its popularity and efficacy, this solution has the disadvantage of excessive harvestin...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d102fbed42274b86b9b298446c16be97 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Introduction: After surgery for oral cavity cancer, superficial surgical defects are usually covered with a skin graft that can be harvested with different thicknesses depending on the reconstructive need. Despite its popularity and efficacy, this solution has the disadvantage of excessive harvesting times and scarring of the donor site. Other surgeons have proposed the use of bovine pericardium as a reconstructive solution. Its use in otorhinolaryngology especially after oral cavity surgery has never been reported. Objective: The aim of this manuscript is to present our preliminary experience with the use of a collagen membrane obtained from bovine pericardium in the reconstruction of small and superficial defects after transoral resection of oral cavity tumors. Methods: A bovine collagen membrane was used to cover surgical defects in 19 consecutive patients undergoing transoral resection of small/superficial oral cancers. Photographs were obtained in the postoperative period to follow the healing process. We analyzed the pro and cons of this tool, recorded data on postoperative chewing-, speech- and taste-related quality of life, and tested the most appropriate settings providing the best reconstructive result. Results: The bovine collagen membrane allowed us to cover surgical defects of varying size in different oral sites. Shaping and placement proved to be simple. The membrane facilitated physiologic tissue repair: after one month it was completely absorbed and replaced by the patient’s own mucosa. No adverse features were observed in the cohort. Conclusion: A bovine collagen membrane can represent a fast and easy solution in cases of split-thickness defect. Unlike a skin graft, it is not associated with donor site morbidity and allows the patient’s own mucosa to be restored with a more physiological result. |
|---|