A retrospective comparison of the morbidity and cost of different reconstructive strategies in oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE: Evaluate and compare the morbidity and costs of different reconstructive strategies in oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients treated surgically for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma between 1990 and 1996 were evaluated. Sixty-three patients had segmental mandibulectomies with 30 plate-soft tissue reconstructions and 33 bone-soft tissue flaps. Sixty-four patients had soft-tissue-only reconstructions. The following outcome parameters were analyzed: operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative admission length, ICU and coronary care unit admission length, surgical interventions for complications, re-admissions, and prolonged (>6 mo) gastrostomy tube feeding, and all costs within the disease-free interval. Means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous parameters. Differences among the three groups were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. For discontinuous parameters, the chi-square test was applied. RESULTS: Longer operative time (1.8 h) and more blood loss (150 mL) for bone-soft tissue flaps were the only statistically significant findings (P<.05) between the three groups. CONCLUSION: There is no rationale for allowing presumed factors of morbidity or cost select for type of reconstruction in patients with oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.