Shoulder Disability After Different Selective Neck Dissections (Levels II-IV Versus Levels II-V): A Comparative Study

Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective was to compare the results of clinical and electrophysiological investigations of shoulder function in patients affected by head and neck carcinoma treated with concomitant surgery on the primary and the neck with different selective neck dissections. Study Desig...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Laryngoscope 2005-02, Vol.115 (2), p.259-263
Hauptverfasser: Cappiello, Johnny, Piazza, Cesare, Giudice, Marco, De Maria, Giovanni, Nicolai, Piero
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective was to compare the results of clinical and electrophysiological investigations of shoulder function in patients affected by head and neck carcinoma treated with concomitant surgery on the primary and the neck with different selective neck dissections. Study Design: Retrospective study of 40 patients managed at the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Brescia (Brescia, Italy) between January 1999 and December 2001. Methods: Two groups of 20 patients each matched for gender and age were selected according to the type of neck dissection received: patients in group A had selective neck dissection involving clearance of levels II–IV, and patients in group B had clearance of levels II–V. The inclusion criteria were as follows: no preoperative signs of myopathy or neuropathy, no postoperative radiotherapy, and absence of locoregional recurrence. At least 1 year after surgery, patients underwent evaluation of shoulder function by means of a questionnaire, clinical inspection, strength and motion tests, electromyography of the upper trapezius and sternocleidomastoid muscles, and electroneurography of the spinal accessory nerve. Statistical comparisons of the clinical data were obtained using the contingency tables with Fisher's Exact test. Electrophysiological data were analyzed by means of Fisher's Exact test, and electromyography results by Kruskal‐Wallis test. Results: A slight strength impairment of the upper limb, slight motor deficit of the shoulder, and shoulder pain were observed in 0%, 5%, and 15% of patients in group A and in 20%, 15%, and 15% of patients in group B, respectively. On inspection, in group B, shoulder droop, shoulder protraction, and scapular flaring were present in 30%, 15%, and 5% of patients, respectively. One patient (5%) in group A showed shoulder droop as the only significant finding. In group B, muscle strength and arm movement impairment were found in 25% of patients, 25% showed limited shoulder flexion, and 50% had abnormalities of shoulder abduction with contralateral head rotation. In contrast, only one patient (5%) in group A presented slight arm abduction impairment. Electromyographic abnormalities were less frequently found in group A than in group B (40% vs. 85% [P = .003]), and the distribution of abnormalities recorded in the upper trapezius muscle and sternocleidomastoid muscle was quite different: 20% and 40% in group A versus 85% and 45% in group B, respectively. Only one case
ISSN:0023-852X
1531-4995
DOI:10.1097/01.mlg.0000154729.31281.da