Download PDF
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 21(01): 8-16
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1592153
Original Research
Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Neck Dissection Technique Commonality and Variance: A Survey on Neck Dissection Technique Preferences among Head and Neck Oncologic Surgeons in the American Head and Neck Society

Shirin M. Hemmat
1   School of Medicine, UCSF, San Francisco, California, United States
,
Steven J. Wang
2   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States
,
William R. Ryan
3   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Oncologic/Endocrine/Salivary Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 June 2016

22 July 2016

Publication Date:
05 September 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Neck dissection (ND) technique preferences are not well reported.

Objective The objective of this study is to educate practitioners and trainees about surgical technique commonality and variance used by head and neck oncologic surgeons when performing a ND.

Methods Online survey of surgeon members of the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS). Survey investigated respondents' demographic information, degree of surgical experience, ND technique preferences.

Results In our study, 283 out of 1,010 (28%) AHNS surgeon members with a mean age of 50.3 years (range 32–77 years) completed surveys from 41 states and 24 countries. We found that 205 (72.4%) had completed a fellowship in head and neck surgical oncology. Also, 225 (79.5%) respondents reported completing more than 25 NDs per year.

ND technique commonalities (>66% respondents) included: preserving level 5 (unless with suspicious lymph nodes (LN)), only excising the portion of sternocleidomastoid muscle involved with tumor, resecting lymphatic tissue en bloc, preservation of cervical sensory rootlets, not performing submandibular gland (SMG) transfer, placing one drain for unilateral selective NDs, and performing a ND after parotidectomy and thyroidectomy and before transcervical approaches to upper aerodigestive tract primary site. Variability existed in the sequence of LN levels excised, instrument preferences, criteria for drain removal, the timing of a ND with transoral upper aerodigestive tract primary site resections, and submandibular gland preservation. Results showed that 122 (43.1%) surgeons reported that they preserve the submandibular gland during the level 1b portion of a ND.

Conclusions The commonalities and variances reported for the ND technique may help put individual preferences into context.

Keywords

neck dissection - graduate medical education - survey and questionnaires - surgical instruments
 

  • References

  • 1 Crile G. Excision of cancer of the head and neck with special reference to plan of dissection based on 132 operations. JAMA 1906; 47: 1780
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ferlito A, Robbins KT, Shah JP , et al. Proposal for a rational classification of neck dissections. Head Neck 2011; 33 (3) 445-450
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Terrell JE, Welsh DE, Bradford CR , et al. Pain, quality of life, and spinal accessory nerve status after neck dissection. Laryngoscope 2000; 110 (4) 620-626
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Melvin TA, Eliades SJ, Ha PK , et al. Neck dissection through a facelift incision. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (12) 2700-2706
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Teymoortash A, Hoch S, Eivazi B, Werner JA. Postoperative morbidity after different types of selective neck dissection. Laryngoscope 2010; 120 (5) 924-929
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Goldstein DP, Ringash J, Bissada E , et al. Scoping review of the literature on shoulder impairments and disability after neck dissection. Head Neck 2014; 36 (2) 299-308
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Busaba NY, Fabian RL. Extent of lymphadenectomy achieved by various modifications of neck dissection: a pathologic analysis. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (2 Pt 1): 212-215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Dhiwakar M, Ronen O, Malone J , et al. Feasibility of submandibular gland preservation in neck dissection: A prospective anatomic-pathologic study. Head Neck 2011; 33 (5) 603-609
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lanzer M, Gander T, Lübbers HT, Metzler P, Bredell M, Reinisch S. Preservation of ipsilateral submandibular gland is ill advised in cancer of the floor of the mouth or tongue. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (9) 2070-2074
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kim EY, Eisele DW, Goldberg AN, Maselli J, Kezirian EJ. Neck dissections in the United States from 2000 to 2006: volume, indications, and regionalization. Head Neck 2011; 33 (6) 768-773
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Urquhart AC, Berg RL. Neck dissections: predicting postoperative drainage. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (7 Pt 1): 1294-1298
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lim YC, Koo BS, Lee JS, Choi EC. Level V lymph node dissection in oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma patients with clinically node-positive neck: is it absolutely necessary?. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (7) 1232-1235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Davidson BJ, Kulkarny V, Delacure MD, Shah JP. Posterior triangle metastases of squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Am J Surg 1993; 166 (4) 395-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Saffold SH, Wax MK, Nguyen A , et al. Sensory changes associated with selective neck dissection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126 (3) 425-428
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar