PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 23, 2026Journal of Surgical Oncology0 citations

Management of the Condyle in Posterior Mandibular Reconstruction: Major Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes

View Full Paper
JCJanet Coleman-BelinMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterKZKevin K. ZhangZCZack CohenMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Key Points

  • This research aims to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes between condyle preservation and resection during posterior mandibular reconstruction.
  • Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing bony free flap reconstruction from 2017 to 2021.
  • Major clinical outcomes included length of stay, follow-up duration, and cancer recurrence.
  • Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer module.
  • No significant difference in major clinical outcomes was found between cohorts.
  • Condyle-preserved patients reported significantly better overall facial appearance and eating function compared to those with condyle resection.
  • Long-term benefits in patient-reported outcomes were notable for condyle preservation over resection.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives Tumor involvement of the posterior mandible often requires resection of the mandibular condyle and associated soft tissue. This study explores clinical and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) associated with condyle preservation versus resection during reconstruction. Methods This retrospective cohort study examined patients who underwent bony free flap reconstruction of posterolateral mandible defects from 2017 to 2021. Major clinical outcomes included length of stay (LOS), duration of follow‐up, cancer recurrence, and all‐cause mortality. PROs were assessed using the validated FACE‐Q Head and Neck Cancer module survey for overall, short‐term (0–1 year postoperatively), and long‐term (> 1 year postoperatively) outcomes. The cohorts included (1) condyle preservation, (2) condyle resection with condyle autotransplantation, and (3) condyle resection without autotransplantation. Results 94 patients were included in the study. Major clinical outcomes did not significantly differ between cohorts (all p > 0.439). Compared to the condyle‐resected cohort, condyle‐preserved patients overall reported superior Overall Facial Appearance ( p = 0.035), Eating Function ( p = 0.034), Appearance/Face Distress ( p = 0.020), Eating Distress ( p = 0.017), and Cancer Worry ( p = 0.002). Long‐term assessments revealed more marked advantages for in‐situ condyle preservation compared to condyle resection in Overall Facial Appearance ( p = 0.022), Eating Function ( p = 0.004), Smiling Function ( p = 0.035), Swallowing Function ( p = 0.003), Eating Distress ( p = 0.006), and Cancer Worry ( p = 0.011). Among condyle‐resected patients, condyle autograft did not significantly improve FACE‐Q scores (all p > 0.177). Conclusions In‐situ condyle preservation yielded superior PROs compared to condyle resection ± condyle autograft, particularly over 1 year postoperatively. Major clinical outcomes did not significantly differ.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Coleman-Belin et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/697310b0c8125b09b0d20554https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.70182
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper