Nasopharyngectomy: does the approach to the nasopharynx influence survival?

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Jul;139(1):40-6. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.04.018.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether the approach used to the nasopharynx to perform a salvage nasopharyngectomy for recurrent or residual nasopharyngeal carcinoma influences survival.

Study design: A retrospective case series.

Subjects and methods: Eighty patients underwent a nasopharyngectomy via a transpalatal, maxillary swing, or midfacial degloving approach. Local progression-free, locoregional progression-free, and overall survival rates were calculated for each approach.

Results: For the whole group (N = 80), there were no significant differences in the survival rates between the three approaches. For the subgroup of patients with recurrent T1 and T2 tumors (n = 68), the local progression-free and locoregional progression-free survival rates were significantly better when a maxillary swing approach was used than when a midfacial degloving approach was used.

Conclusion: The maxillary swing approach is associated with significantly better survival rates than the midfacial degloving approach when used to perform a salvage nasopharyngectomy for residual or recurrent T1 and T2 nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms / mortality*
  • Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms / surgery*
  • Nasopharynx / surgery*
  • Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures / methods
  • Salvage Therapy
  • Survival Rate