Transhyoid approach in surgical treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma

The study objective is to assess functional and oncologic results of transhyoid approach used for surgical treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma.

Materials and methods. Operative records, hospital charts and data from out-patient department of 55 patients (T1 – 6, T2 – 16, T3 – 19, T4 – 14) with oropharyngeal carcinoma operated via a transhyoid approach were reviewed. Postoperative period was reviewed for complications. All oncologic adverse events were registered with special emphasis on the rate of local recurrence. A univariate analysis with chisquare and Fisher’s exact test was used to check the correlation between tumor factors and surgical variables (complications, mode of reconstruction). The influence of tumor- and treatment-related variables (T stage, differentiation, perineural invasion, p16 status, depth of invasion, extension to the oral cavity, adjuvant treatment) on the rate of local recurrence was studied in the same way. The log-rank test was used to assess differences in survival curves. The data was compared with other series of patients treated with the same technique.

Results. Seventeen (30,9 %) patients developed 29 complications. There was 1 postoperative death. Five (9,1 %) patients required repeated operation. The mode of reconstruction (primary closure vs flaps) was a major factor influencing the rate of complications. Fifty (92,6 %) patients were able to resume oral diet with a duration of nasogastric tube feeding of 7–35 days. Three-year overall/disease-specific survival for the whole cohort were 47 and 51,1 %, for p16-positive (22 %) cohort – 65,6 and 87,5 %, for p16-negative (78 %) cohort – 40,6 and 46,8 %. Thirteen (24 %) patients developed a local recurrence. The rate of local recurrence was negatively affected by p16 negativity (p = 0,048), depth of invasion >10 mm (p = 0,044) and depth of invasion >15 mm (p = 0,003).

Conclusion. Transhyoid approach may be considered as a surgical option for treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma with acceptable rate of complications.

1. Trotter W. A method of lateral pharyngotomy for the exposure of large growths of the epilaryngeal region. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1920;13(Laryngol Sect):196–8.

2. Laccourreye O., Benito J., Menard M. et al. Lateral pharyngotomy for selected invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the lateral oropharynx. Part I: How. Laryngoscope 2013;123(11):2712–7. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24161.

3. Agrawal A., Wenig B.L. Resection of cancer of the tongue base and tonsil via the transhyoid approach. Laryngoscope 2000;110(11):1802–6. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200011000-00005.

4. Nasri S., Oh Y., Calcaterra T.C. Transpharyngeal approach to base of tongue tumors: a comparative study. Laryngoscope 1996;106(8):945–50. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199608000- 00006.

5. Masuda M., Fukushima J., Kadota H. et al. Mandible preserving pull-through oropharyngectomy for advanced oropharyngeal cancer: a pilot study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2011;38(3):392–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2010.08.010.

6. Shah J.P., Patel S.G., Singh B. Pharynx and esophagus. In: Shah J.P., Patel S.G., Singh B. Jatin Shah’s head and neck sugery and oncology. 4th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012. P. 309.

7. Sobin L.H., Gospodarowicz M.K., Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th edn. Oxford: Wiley, 2009.

8. Pelliccia P., Del Pero M.M., Mercier G. et al. Mini-invasive lateral oropharyngectomy for T3–T4a oropharyngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270(4):1419–25. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-012-2158-5.

9. Bertolin A., Ghirardo G., Lionello M. et al. Lateral pharyngotomy approach in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274(6):2573–80. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4538-3.

10. Roux M., Dassonville O., Ettaiche M. et al. Transoral-transcervical oropharyngectomy without mandibulotomy, associated to fasciocutaneous radial forearm free-flap reconstruction, for oropharyngeal cancer: Postoperative course, oncologic and functional results, and prognostic factors. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2017;134(2):71–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2016.11.004.

11. Rodrigo J.P., Díaz-Molina J.P., Moreno C. et al. Oncologic and functional results after transhyoid surgical approach for cancer of the base of tongue. Head Neck 2011;33(8):1079–84. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21569.

12. Zhang X., Li M.J., Fang Q.G. et al. A comparison between the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap and the free anterolateral thigh perforator flap for reconstruction in head and neck cancer patients: assessment of the quality of life. J Craniofacial Surg 2014;25(3):868–71. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000443.

13. Geiger E.J., Basques B.A., Chang C.C. et al. Pedicle versus free flap reconstruction in patients receiving intraoperative brachytherapy. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2016;50(4):227–32. DOI: 10.3109/2000656X.2016.1152974.

14. Zafereo M.E., Weber R.S., Lewin J.S. et al. Complications and functional outcomes following complex oropharyngeal reconstruction. Head Neck 2010;32(8):1003–11. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21290.

15. Bhayani M.K., Hutcheson K.A., Barringer D.A. et al. Gastrostomy tube placement in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy: factors affecting placement and dependence. Head Neck 2013;35(11):1634–40. DOI: 10.1002/hed.23200.

16. Ibrahim A.S., Civantos F.J., Leibowitz J.M. et al. Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of different transoral surgical modalities in management of oropharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck 2019;41(6):1656–66. DOI: 10.1002/hed.25647.

17. Brickman D., Gross N.D. Robotic approaches to the pharynx: tonsil cancer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2014;47(3):359–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2014.03.002.

18. Poon H., Li C., Gao W. et al. Evolution of robotic systems for transoral head and neck surgery. Vol. 87. Elsevier, 2018. Pp. 82–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.10.020.