We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Lymph node yield is an important prognostic factor in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Variability in neck dissection sampling techniques has not been studied as a determinant of lymph node yield.
Methods
This retrospective study used lymph node yield and average nodes per level to compare level-by-level and en bloc neck dissection sampling methods, in primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cases operated between March 2017 and February 2020.
Results
From 123 patients, 182 neck dissections were analysed, of which 133 were selective and the rest were comprehensive: 55 had level-by-level sampling and 127 had undergone en bloc dissection. The level-by-level method yielded more nodes in all neck dissections combined (20 vs 17; p = 0.097), but the difference was significant only for the subcohort of selective neck dissection (18.5 vs 15; p = 0.011). However, the gain in average nodes per level achieved by level-by-level sampling was significant in both groups (4.2 vs 3.33 and 4.4 vs 3, respectively; both p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Sampling of cervical lymph nodes level-by-level yields more nodes than the en bloc technique. Further studies could verify whether neck dissection sampling technique has any impact on survival rates.
This study investigated the incidence and routes of submandibular gland involvement in oral cavity carcinoma to determine the feasibility of submandibular gland sparing neck dissection.
Methods:
The records of 155 patients diagnosed with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma, with a total of 183 neck specimens, including those involving level I, were reviewed retrospectively.
Results:
Submandibular gland involvement, via direct invasion from the anatomical proximity of T4a tumours, was evident in two patients. The floor of mouth location, either primarily or as an extension of the primary tumour, was the only risk factor for submandibular gland involvement in oral cavity carcinoma (p = 0.042). Tumour location, clinical and pathological tumour (T) and nodal (N) stages, and radiological suspicion of mandible invasion, were not found to be statistically relevant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
The results suggest the feasibility of preserving the submandibular gland in early stage oral cavity carcinoma unless the tumour is located in, or extends to, the floor of mouth.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.