RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Many studies have been reported on tracheostomy to prevent upper airway obstruction after surgery. Among these, the scoring system proposed by Cameron et al. quantifies various factors that influence postoperative respiratory failure. This system provides a basis for surgeons to decide whether to perform an elective tracheostomy. In this study, the authors applied the Cameron scoring system retrospectively to patients undergoing severe oral cancer surgery to reevaluate the indications for elective tracheostomy and to investigate its clinical efficacy in airway management. In this study, a sample of 20 patients who underwent oral cancer surgery was selected and divided into two groups: 10 underwent tracheostomy and 10 did not. The Cameron scoring scores for each patient were extracted, to verify whether elective tracheostomy was performed in accordance with the threshold scores. Differences in scores and significant clinical impact factors between the two groups were analyzed and compared. RESULT: The 10 patients who underwent tracheostomy had an average Cameron score of 6.4, all scoring above the recommended threshold of 5 for tracheostomy. For the 10 patients who did not undergo tracheostomy, the average score was 2.5, with 8 out of these 10 patients scoring below 5. Significant clinical impact factors observed included the location and size of the tumor, the performance of mandibulectomy and neck dissection, and the type of reconstruction surgery. CONCLUSION: In planning surgery for oral cancer patients, it is essential to consider the use of elective tracheostomy based on preoperative assessment of the risk of postoperative airway obstruction using tools like the Cameron scoring system, and patients' condition. Research confirms that elective tracheostomy effectively enhances airway management in patients with severe oral cancer.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of planned maxillary positioning by virtual surgery by comparing planned and actual postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients who underwent 2-jaw orthognathic surgery performed by a single surgeon from May 2017 to December 2020 were the subjects of this retrospective study. The coordinates of reference points in horizontal, sagittal, and coronal planes as determined by virtual surgery were compared with those of actual surgical outcomes. The reference points used were as follows: #16 mesiobuccal cusp tip (#16), #26 mesiobuccal cusp tip (#26), and #11 mesial tip (U1); anterior nasal spine; and posterior nasal spine. Three-dimensional linear distances between the reference point on which virtual surgery was performed and the reference point after the actual operation was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients, there were 11 males and 9 females of average age 20.65±2.41 years. Three-dimensional printed wafers had high accuracy with a maximum difference of 0.3 mm. No significant difference was observed in horizontal or coronal planes for any reference point, but a significant difference was observed in the sagittal plane. However, positional differences between planned and actual reference points were all <1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning and 3-dimensional printed wafer achieved excellent maxillary positioning accuracies after orthognathic surgery.
