Добавил:
Sekretar
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
15 Malignancies oftheNose 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 1cm, 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 disguring defect for at least 6months, 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 3–4weeks. 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 oftheNose 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 difcult 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 6months 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
3–4weeks 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 3–4weeks, 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 4weeks 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 sufce; 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 6months

15 Malignancies oftheNose 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 6months
ab c
Fig. 15.3 (a) Inltrative 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 1year

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 3weeks 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 denizione
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,
etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 oftheNose 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 forNasal
https://t.me/medicina_free
Vestibule Malignancies
FrancescoBussu, LucaTagliaferri, MichalCzerwinski,
AgataRembielak, ClaudiaCrescio, LiaVerhoef,
GyorgyKovacs, JacopoGalli, andVincenzoValentini
16.1 Setting New Standards forClassification andStaging
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 misclassication of these lesions as primary skin
malignancies;
• in the WHO International Classication of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O),
nasal vestibule malignancies [4] are classied 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 inltrate 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
inlocally 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, dening a specic 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 forNasal 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 supercial 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 difcult to treat, vestibular SCC and
predicts worse tumor control [1, 5–7]. Back in 1976, C.C. Wang outlined that “there
is no acceptable classication for tumors of the nasal vestibule” and proposed a
classication of primary lesions (T) specic for the nasal vestibule [8] (Table16.1).
The Wang classication 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-classications. It remains broadly used in staging of nasal vestibule malignancies [1, 3, 5–7, 9]. In spite of that, the Wang classication can result difcult to
apply in daily practice and to lower it down to AJCC/UICC classication 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
classication).
• Clear anatomical landmarks identiable both clinically and radiologically are
not dened.
• 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 theClassification andStaging ofNasal
Vestibule Malignancies
Based on the above considerations, there is a need for a shared international standard for classication 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-classication in nasal vestibule malignancies
T1 The lesion is limited to the nasal vestibule internal surface (skin and/or mucosa)
T2a The lesion invades supercial 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
