KoreaMed, a service of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE), provides access to articles published in Korean medical, dental, nursing, nutrition and veterinary journals. KoreaMed records include links to full-text content in Synapse and publisher web sites.
Clinical outcome of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer: a prospective observational study
Objectives This prospective observational study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of perioperative airway and ventilatory management in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer. The study described the frequencies and types of procedures for securing the airway and the duration and types of postoperative ventilatory support. We compared the findings with those of the TRACHY study.
Patients and Methods One hundred patients undergoing oral cavity oncological surgeries were included. Airway assessment included inter-incisor gap, Mallampati class, neck movements, and radiological features. Surgical parameters, postoperative ventilatory support, and complications were documented.
Results The buccal mucosa was the most common cancer site (48.0%), and direct laryngoscopy was deemed difficult in 58.0% of patients. Awake fibreoptic intubation or elective tracheostomy was required in 43.0% of cases. Thirty-three patients were extubated on the table, and 34 patients were successfully managed with a delayed extubation strategy. In comparison with the TRACHY study, variations were observed in demographic parameters, tumour characteristics, and surgical interventions. Our mean TRACHY score was 1.38, and only five patients had a score ≥4. Prophylactic tra-cheostomy was performed in 2.0% of cases, in contrast to the TRACHY study in which 42.0% of patients underwent the procedure.
Conclusion The study emphasizes the challenges in airway management for oral cavity cancer surgery. While prophylactic tracheostomy may be necessary in specific cases, individualized approaches, including delayed extubation, are preferrable to maximize safety. Our findings contribute to better understanding and managing perioperative challenges in oral cancer patients and highlight the need for personalized strategies. Scoring systems like TRACHY should not be accepted as universally applicable.
Figure
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram.
Fig. 2
Types of ventilatory support in an intensive care unit (ICU).
Fig. 3
Duration of postoperative ventilatory support.
Fig. 4
Length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
Reference
References
1. Bedi RS, Pande G, Patel JS, Khan Z, Chauhan N. 2015; Oral cancer: a review. Eras J Med Res. 2:22–41.
8. Cai TY, Zhang WB, Yu Y, Wang Y, Mao C, Guo CB, et al. 2020; Scoring system for selective tracheostomy in head and neck surgery with free flap reconstruction. Head Neck. 42:476–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26028. DOI: 10.1002/hed.26028. PMID: 31799777. Article
9. Myatra SN, Gupta S, D'Cruz AK, Rajanala V, Dhar H, Sharma S, et al. 2021; Identification of patients for a delayed extubation strategy versus elective tracheostomy for postoperative airway management in major oral cancer surgery: a prospective observational study in seven hundred and twenty patients. Oral Oncol. 121:105502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105502. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105502. PMID: 34450455. Article
13. Bhatnagar S, Mishra S, Jha RR, Singhal AK. 2005; Predicting difficult laryngoscopy in oral cancer patients. Indian J Anaesth. 49:413–6.
14. Dawson R, Phung D, Every J, Gunawardena D, Low TH, Ch'ng S, et al. 2021; Tracheostomy in free-flap reconstruction of the oral cavity: can it be avoided? A cohort study of 187 patients. ANZ J Surg. 91:1246–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16762. DOI: 10.1111/ans.16762. PMID: 33825282. Article