Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4624_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
13 Мб
Скачать
☆
15 Malignancies oftheNose Vestibule: Salvage Strategies
https://t.me/medicina_free
Planning of reconstruction after excision consists of an analysis of the expected defect after lesion removal and the choice among the reconstructive options left after previous surgery.
Being ready for a reconstructive plan A and plan B is particularly important in salvage surgery, where the pattern of spread of the recurrent lesion may be unpredictable.
187
15.3.1 Preoperative Evaluation
Any persistent crusting nodularity or ulceration during follow-up should be sus­pected as recurrence and biopsied.
Once diagnosis is established, a CT scan or MRI can help clinical examination in evaluating soft tissue and/or bone extension, according to the Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MDTB) decision.
The spread of the recurrent lesion is dependent on the site of recurrence.
Lesions recurring on the ala nasi often spread to the skin, becoming “through­and- through” lesions of the ala and/or to the tip of the nose, or toward the nasolabial area and can invade the bone of the pyriform opening.
Lesions recurring on the membranous septum spread to the cartilaginous septum up to the vomer and/or to the columella and the nasal spine.
Lesions recurring on the nostril sill spread to the upper lip up to maxillary bone.
Accurate evaluation of the extent of the neoplasm has to be performed, also tak­ing into account the quality of the tissue around the lesion. Previous scars and clini­cally evident radiation tissue changes need to be noted, in order to possibly include them into the excision plan.
Precise photographic documentation has to be taken and recorded.
15.3.2 Surgical Planning
Planning of resection follows the analysis of recurrent lesion and surrounding scars and radiation damage, and therefore, it has to be individualized.
The resection must include the recurrent lesion, the scarred and/or radiation damaged surrounding soft tissue, and a healthy margin of at least 1cm, if possible.
Bone needs to be included in the resection when contiguous or invaded by the lesion. The amount of resection depends on cancer invasion. Bone healthy margin cannot be assessed intraoperatively; therefore, a wide bone resection, if feasible, should be performed. According to the position of the lesion, nasal septum, nasal bones, the ascending branch of maxillary bone, the upper part of the upper maxilla, and the nasal spine may need to be removed with criteria analogous to what described in Chap. 8.
Intraoperative histopathologic control of soft tissues margins must always be planned.
188
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Rubino et al.
15.3.3 Reconstructive Options
Reconstruction of defects after salvage surgery of the nasal vestibule is a challeng­ing task, for the following reasons:
1. The demolitive surgery follows the pattern of the recurrent lesion and, therefore,
the size and the geometry of the defects are often peculiar and unpredictable.
2. Bone margins cannot be assessed intraoperatively; therefore, the team has to
decide whether reconstruction should be immediate, carrying the risk of hiding a further recurrence, or delaying reconstruction, leaving the patient with a disg­uring defect for at least 6months, in subtotal nasal reconstruction.
3. Post-surgical scarring, radiation damage, or both may hinder some reconstruc-
tive options.
Potential scenarios for reconstruction after surgical salvage of nose vestibule recurrences.
In summary, the reconstructive surgeon faces these possibilities in salvage sur­gery of the nasal vestibule [10–18].
• Resection of a recurrent lesion of the vestibular lateral lining results in a full
thickness defect of ala nasi, with or without involvement of the margin of the
pyriform opening [18, 19].
• Resection of a recurrence of the medial vestibular skin produces a defect of the
tip of the nose with varying degrees of lack of septal support, which may include,
in different cases, a defect in nasal lining, nasal bones, nasal spine, and dorsal
nasal skin.
• A recurrence of a lesion on the lining of the nasal sill may lead to a defect extend-
ing to the upper lip and/or to the maxillary bone.
• The sum of two or more of the above defects.
1. As to the rst possibility, the reconstructive surgeon must, rst of all, assess the
quality of the skin of the nasolabial fold and the cheek. If no scars of signs of radiation damage to the skin are present, reconstruction of full thickness defects of ala nasi can be performed using nasolabial aps. The lining is provided in salvage procedures using skin turnover aps from the edge of the defect and folding the ap for the border of the ala. The ap is based on a superior pedicle, and a cartilage alar batten from auricular cartilage is useful as a support for the alar margin support, mainly in a second step after 3–4weeks. In salvage proce­dures, the use of composite grafts from the auricle is not indicated because of decreased vascularity due to scarring or previous radiotherapy. If previous scars or extensive radiation damages or wider excisions preclude the use of nasolabial aps, a paramedian forehead is the preferred choice.
2. The recurrence of cancers of the medial vestibule of the nose invades columella,
the septum and, ultimately, the defect after salvage resections results in a loss of
15 Malignancies oftheNose Vestibule: Salvage Strategies
https://t.me/medicina_free
189
the tip of the nose that may extend to wide portions of septum, sometimes involv­ing part of nasal bones and dorsal nasal coverage. This means that the patient needs a subtotal nasal reconstruction. Provided that the paramedian forehead aps have not been used yet and no scars or other damage preclude its use, fore­head aps are the best choice for such defects. It is important that the Head and Neck MDTB consider the possibility of a delayed reconstruction in cases of skeletal tumor invasion, (1) because it is not possible to have an intraoperative pathological evaluation of margins; (2) because the detection of early recurrence inside the nose is more difcult being hidden by reconstruction; and (3) in case of further recurrence, we have exploited already the best possible reconstruction. Therefore, in such cases a reconstruction delayed after 6months is often a wise decision. Lining may rely only for limited needs on turnover skin aps in salvage cases. If radiotherapy has been used for primary therapy, the remaining nasal lining cannot be used as aps to provide lining for reconstruction. The same applies for cartilage and mucosal aps to be used for skeletal support: they are not reliable if radiotherapy or heavy scarring is present. Therefore, our rst choice in salvage procedures of subtotal nasal reconstruction is a delayed three­step paramedian forehead folded ap. Lining is provided by folding of the ap for the caudal lining and by a full thickness skin graft for the remaining part. Skeletal support, according to the needs, is provided by cartilage costal grafts for dorsum and for columellar support, alar batten, or tip graft by auricular cartilage. The timing of reconstruction depends on the necessity of dorsal and columellar support (“L” strut). In cases “L” strut is not needed, the forehead ap is elevated and transposed in the rst step with folding of the distal ap; the ap is elevated at the tip for defatting, inserting alar cartilage grafts and skin graft for lining after 3–4weeks and sutured, without section of the pedicle; the pedicle is sectioned and removed with nal remodeling in the third step. In cases “L” strut is needed, the rst step consists of harvesting costal cartilage and pre-laminating the ap with insertion of the grafts between the skin and galea plane in the forehead in a position corresponding to the dorsum and the columella in the ap; in the second step after 3–4weeks, the ap is elevated and the two grafts are xed to the dor­sum, to the area of nasal spine and between them at nose tip in a “L” fashion; skin graft for lining and alar graft can be added at this time; section of the pedicle and remodeling are performed after other 4weeks in the nal step [20].
3. Recurrences of nasal vestibular cancers in the area of the nostril still lead to
defects on the tissue of the upper lip base of the ala nasi and columella, with pos­sible involvement of maxillary bone and nasal spine. Destruction of nasal tip and caudal septum can result from bigger lesions. In these situations, it is imperative a reconstruction of what is called the platform of the nose with cheek or nasola­bial aps for soft tissues and cartilage grafts for nasal spine. It is noteworthy that reconstruction of the nasal platform is to be performed before sub-total nasal reconstruction with forehead or other aps; otherwise, the resulting reconstruc­tion will lack tip projection and will show midline retrusion.
4. In reconstruction of composite wide defects extending to neighbor anatomic
areas or involving two or all vestibular subunits, the surgeon should rst consider
190
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Rubino et al.
if the use of locoregional available aps will sufce; if not, the use of a free forearm ap for lining, associated with cartilage grafts and a forehead ap for skin cover, may be planned if patient clinical conditions would allow that. The radial forearm free ap is harvested in the rst stage folded and transposed to the nose to reconstruct the nasal lining, the nasal sill, and nostrils, a skin graft covers dorsum. During following stages, cartilage grafts for support and a paramedian forehead ap for skin reconstruction complete nasal reconstruction.
Examples of such reconstructive options are provided in Figs.15.1, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4.
An alternative to full thickness subtotal surgical reconstruction of the nose is the use of a custom-made nasal prosthesis [19, 21, 22] (see Chap. 9).
It is an important alternative to surgical reconstruction to be discussed with the patients. It does not preclude further surgery, if necessary, it has a good aesthetic outcome and allows easy follow-up for recurrences. On the other hand, the need to be removed for daily maintenance and the fact that changes in facial skin tone and atrophy may cause discomfort and embarrassment to the patient. Furthermore, in post irradiation recurrences, the quality of the bone may pose issues to the place­ment of osteointegrated implants, which are the best option for prosthesis xation. Therefore, pros and cons of the various alternatives must be discussed thoroughly with the patient.
ab
c d
c
Fig. 15.1 (a) Recurrent neoplasm of the right nostril. (b) Defect after wide excision. (c) Marking of the right superior pedicle nasolabial ap. (d) Postoperative result after 6months
15 Malignancies oftheNose Vestibule: Salvage Strategies
https://t.me/medicina_free
ab
c
191
Fig. 15.2 (a) Recurrent neoplasm of the right nasal ala. (b) Reconstruction after pedicle nasola- bial ap. (c) Postoperative result after 6months
ab c
Fig. 15.3 (a) Inltrative neoplasm of the right medial nasal vestibule. (b) Defect invading colu- mella and cartilagineous septum and upper lip. Superior-based right nasolabial ap is marked. (c) Postoperative result after 1year
192
cd
https://t.me/medicina_free
C. Rubino et al.
ab
efghi
Fig. 15.4 (a) Subtotal resection after multiple treatments of neoplasm originated by left nose vestibule. (b) Planning of the rst step showing the marking of the ap and the planned position of cartilagenous graft. (c) Costal cartilagenous graft harvesting. (d) Step I: result after insertion of cartilagenous graft into the forehead. (e) Step II: forehead ap harvested with the skin graft for lining. (f) The ap after 3weeks after step 2. (g–i) Postoperative result 20 years after step III: resection of the pedicle and ap shaping
References
1. Bussu F, Tagliaferri L, Piras A, Rizzo D, Tsatsaris N, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G. Multidisciplinary approach to nose vestibule malignancies: setting new standards. Approccio multidisciplinare ai tumori maligni del vestibolo del naso: verso la denizione di nuovi standard. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica. 2021;41(Suppl. 1):S158–S165.
https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-41-2021-16.
2. Bussu F, Tagliaferri L, Crescio C, Rizzo D, Gallus R, Parrilla C, Fionda B, Lancellotta V, Mattiucci GC, Galli J. New standards for the management of nose vestibule malignancies. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2023;143(3):215–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2023.2179662.
3. Czerwinski MD, van Leeuwen RGH, Kaanders J, Zwijnenburg EM, Lipman D, Takes RP, etal. Image guided brachytherapy for cancer of the nasal vestibule: local control and cosmesis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(4):913–21.
4. Bussu F, Tagliaferri L, Mattiucci G, Parrilla C, Dinapoli N, Micciche F, etal. Comparison of interstitial brachytherapy and surgery as primary treatments for nasal vestibule carcinomas. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(2):367–71.
5. Zaoui K, Plinkert PK, Federspil PA.Primary surgical treatment of nasal vestibule cancer ­therapeutic outcome and reconstructive strategies. Rhinology. 2018;56(4):393–9.
6. Langendijk JA, Poorter R, Leemans CR, de Bree R, Doornaert P, Slotman BJ.Radiotherapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal vestibule. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(5):1319–25.
7. Bussu F, Tagliaferri L, De Corso E, Passali GC, Lancellotta V, Mattiucci GC, etal. Functional results of exclusive interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in the treatment of nasal ves­tibule carcinomas. Brachytherapy. 2020;20:178.
8. Tagliaferri L, Fionda B, Bussu F, Parrilla C, Lancellotta V, Deodato F, etal. Interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) for squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal vestibule: a multidisci­plinary systematic review. Eur J Dermatol. 2019;29(4):417–21.
9. Bussu F, Tagliaferri L, Mattiucci G, Parrilla C, Rizzo D, Gambacorta MA, Lancellotta V, Autorino R, Fonnesu C, Kihlgren C, Galli J, Paludetti G, Kovács G, Valentini V.HDR inter­ventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in the treatment of primary and recurrent head and neck malignancies. Head Neck. 2019;41(6):1667–75.
15 Malignancies oftheNose Vestibule: Salvage Strategies
https://t.me/medicina_free
10. Burget GC, Menick FJ.The subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;76(2):239–47.
11. Burget GC, Menick FJ.Nasal support and lining: the marriage of beauty and blood supply. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84(2):189–202.
12. Burget GC, Menick FJ.Nasal reconstruction: seeking a fourth dimension. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78(2):145–57.
13. Burget GC, Walton RL.Optimal use of microvascular free aps, cartilage grafts, and a para­median forehead ap for aesthetic reconstruction of the nose and adjacent facial units. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(5):1171–207; discussion 208–216.
14. Gary C, Burget FJM.Aesthetic reconstruction of the nose. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1994.
15. Menick F.Nasal reconstruction: art and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008.
16. Menick FJ.A 10-year experience in nasal reconstruction with the three-stage forehead ap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(6):1839–55; discussion 56-61.
17. Menick FJ, Salibian A. Microvascular repair of heminasal, subtotal, and total nasal defects with a folded radial forearm ap and a full-thickness forehead ap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):637–51.
18. Qian C, Yaodong X, Xiaoming H, Shaochong F, Yiqing Z.Repair of full-thickness alar defects. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(10):1639–44.
19. Malard O, Lanhouet J, Michel G, Dreno B, Espitalier F, Rio E.Full-thickness nasal defect: place of prosthetic reconstruction. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(2):85–9.
20. Rubino C, Sanna M, Figus A, Farace F, Bocchiotti MA.Three-dimensional prelaminated fore­head ap: two cases of composite nasal reconstruction. Rivista Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica. 2004;36:39–44.
21. Romo T III, Pearson JM. Nasal implants. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2008;16(1):123–32, vi.
22. Romo T III, McLaughlin LA, Levine JM, Sclafani AP.Nasal implants: autogenous, semisyn­thetic, and synthetic. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2002;10(2):155–66.
193
Setting New Standards forNasal
https://t.me/medicina_free
Vestibule Malignancies
FrancescoBussu, LucaTagliaferri, MichalCzerwinski, AgataRembielak, ClaudiaCrescio, LiaVerhoef, GyorgyKovacs, JacopoGalli, andVincenzoValentini
16.1 Setting New Standards forClassification andStaging
Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the nasal vestibule (NV) is usually considered to be a relatively rare cancer, accounting for about 1% of all head and neck malig­nancies [1]. A Danish group estimated an annual incidence of squamous cell of the
F. Bussu Otolaryngology Division, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Sassari, Sassari, Italy
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
L. Tagliaferri · V. Valentini UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy e-mail: luca.tagliaferri@policlinicogemelli.it; vincenzo.valentini@policlinicogemelli.it
M. Czerwinski · L. Verhoef Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands e-mail: Michal.Czerwinski@radboudumc.nl; Lia.Verhoef@radboudumc.nl
A. Rembielak Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK e-mail: agata.rembielak@nhs.net
C. Crescio ( Otolaryngology Division, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Sassari, Italy e-mail: claudia.crescio@aouss.it; ccrescio1@uniss.it
G. Kovacs Gemelli-INTERACTS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy e-mail: gyorgy.kovacs@unicatt.it
J. Galli Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, “A. Gemelli” University Hospital Foundation, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
Department of Head-Neck and Sensory Orngans, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy e-mail: jacopo.galli@unicatt.it
*)
16
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Bussu (ed.), Malignancies of the Nasal Vestibule,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32850-3_16
195
196
https://t.me/medicina_free
F. Bussu et al.
nasal vestibule of 0.41 per 100,000 inhabitants [2, 3]. Nevertheless, we believe that this prevalence is largely underestimated because of two clear reasons:
• the frequent misdiagnosis and misclassication of these lesions as primary skin
malignancies;
• in the WHO International Classication of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O),
nasal vestibule malignancies [4] are classied together and assigned the same topographic code (C30.0) as those of the rest of the nasal cavity (nasal cavity proper); therefore, their real prevalence cannot be extrapolated from most cancer registries.
1. The rst issue derives from the peculiar pattern of spread of nasal vestibule can­cers (see Chap. 3). They inltrate the skin very early, following a path along the nasal cartilages. The external cutaneous part of the lesion is most easily noticed and often treated by non-ENT surgeons, leaving the root of the lesion in the nasal vestibule untreated. This can potentially result in multiple recurrences and an oncological and cosmetic disaster for the patient. Therefore, we recommend that all suspicious lesions of the (peri)nasal skin discovered by general practitioners, dermatologists, or plastic surgeons should be referred for an ENT evaluation, to exclude a nasal vestibule primary before treatment decisions are made.
In fact, it should be obvious that the therapeutic approach to a primary nasal vestibule cancer is completely different than that to a primary skin cancer. This is particularly true in case of primary surgical treatment, which must always be radical: in case of a skin primary, nasal tip cartilages can often be spared with negative margins, and a full thickness (“through”) resection is only necessary inlocally advanced cases. On the contrary, when the primary tumor arises in the nasal vestibule, their typical spread along and between cartilages most often calls for a “through” resection also in early lesions, with the known reconstruc­tive issues (see Chaps. 3, 8, and 9).
2. A single WHO topographic code for the nasal vestibule and nasal cavity proper is in our opinion no longer acceptable, as has been explained in the previous chapters. The most important reasons are in summary:
(a) The abovementioned impossibility to accurately estimate the respective
prevalence as well as prognosis of nasal vestibule and nasal cavity proper cancers using cancer registries mostly based on WHO codes.
(b) The inherent huge differences between nasal vestibule and nasal cavity
malignancies in terms of histopathology (see Chap. 2), clinical history, met­astatic behavior, patterns of spread (see Chap. 3), and responsivity to differ­ent treatment modalities (see Chaps. 6–11).
However, dening a specic topographic code for the nasal vestibule would not
be the only necessary change.
In fact, the current AJCC staging criteria for primary lesions of the nasal vesti-
bule (T) are identical to the nasal cavity proper and ethmoid, but the distinct
16 Setting New Standards forNasal Vestibule Malignancies
https://t.me/medicina_free
197
anatomical features and spreading patterns clearly make these criteria inadequate for tumors of the nasal vestibule [1, 2, 4–7]. For example, skin invasion through the nasal valve (mostly deep to alar and supercial to lateral nasal cartilage) is almost constant among SCC involving the lateral wall of the NV (see Chap. 3) and makes most of them cT4a according to AJCC.On the other hand, paradoxically, bony inva­sion, which, according to the AJCC, can be present even in cT1 ethmoid/nasal cav­ity lesions, is seen only in the bulkiest, most difcult to treat, vestibular SCC and predicts worse tumor control [1, 5–7]. Back in 1976, C.C. Wang outlined that “there is no acceptable classication for tumors of the nasal vestibule” and proposed a classication of primary lesions (T) specic for the nasal vestibule [8] (Table16.1). The Wang classication gives a more appropriate relevance and weight to skin and bone invasion and has been reported to be a better prognostic tool than recent AJCC/ UICC T-classications. It remains broadly used in staging of nasal vestibule malig­nancies [1, 3, 5–7, 9]. In spite of that, the Wang classication can result difcult to apply in daily practice and to lower it down to AJCC/UICC classication as it is, mainly for three reasons (see Chap. 5):
• There are only three T classes (and not four, as is usual in the AJCC/UICC
classication).
• Clear anatomical landmarks identiable both clinically and radiologically are
not dened.
• There is a lack of objective parameters in particular to discriminate between T2
and T3 (e.g., it is not clear what is meant with “massive lip invasion”).
16.1.1 Rethinking theClassification andStaging ofNasal
Vestibule Malignancies
Based on the above considerations, there is a need for a shared international stan­dard for classication and staging of nasal vestibule malignancies (in particular SCC). We propose two changes to the current TNM based on the evidence men­tioned above.
Table 16.1 Preliminary proposal of a new T-classication in nasal vestibule malignancies
T1 The lesion is limited to the nasal vestibule internal surface (skin and/or mucosa) T2a The lesion invades supercial structures outside the nasal cavity (skin and subcutaneous
planes), in particular the upper lip, philtrum, the skin of the nose and/or nasolabial fold, but does not destroy cartilage, nor invade bony structures or structures beyond the plane of the pyriform aperture (septum, lateral wall, turbinates, etc.)
T2b Disruption of cartilages is evident, without invasion of bony structures, nor structures
beyond the plane of the pyriform aperture (septum, lateral wall, turbinates, etc.) T3 The lesion extends beyond the pyriform aperture (septum, lateral wall, turbinates, etc.) T4a The lesion invades bony structures such as the hard palate, nasal bones, frontal process
of the maxilla, the ethmoid, and the orbit T4b Tumor invades any of the following: orbital apex, dura, brain, anterior and middle cranial
fossa, cranial nerves other than (V2), nasopharynx, or clivus