Head and Neck Reconstructive Surgery: Characterization of the One-Team and Two-Team Approaches

Purpose: To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared the patient profiles for 1- versus 2-team surgery within head and neck oncosurgery.

Patients and methods: A retrospective study of the data from 2968 patients who had undergone concurrent head and neck extirpative and reconstructive surgery in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2010 to 2017) was conducted. Patients were stratified into 1- and 2-team surgery groups, and the demographic data were compared. Univariate analyses of the outcomes before and after propensity score matching were conducted.

Results: Most ablative and reconstructive head and neck procedures (68.5%) were performed using a 1-team approach. The patients who had undergone 2-team surgery were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P < .001), to require mandibulectomy (P < .001) or glossectomy (P < .001), and to receive a microvascular free flap (P < .001) but were less likely to require parotidectomy (P < .001) or to receive a rotational flap (P < .001). Before propensity score matching, the patients undergoing 2-team surgery had longer operative times (P < .001), longer postoperative stays (P < .001), greater rates of a return to the operating room (P = .001), and an increased rate of complications (P < .001). After propensity score matching, the 2-team approach continued to have longer operative times (P < .001) and an increased incidence of complications (P < .001) but no significant differences in the length of stay or rate of return to the operating room after Bonferroni's correction.

Conclusions: Nationally, most head and neck ablative and reconstructive surgeries were completed by 1 team. More complicated reconstructive procedures involving microvascular free flaps have been more commonly performed by 2 teams, resulting in slightly longer operative times and greater associated complication rates.