Indian Journal of Cancer Home 

SYMPOSIUM: HEAD AND NECK
[View FULLTEXT] [Download PDF]
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 49  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 209--214

Preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation after total maxillectomy

Charles Paki Molumi1, Siba Prasad Dubey2, Matupi Lorenzz Apaio3 
1 ENT Department, Port Moresby General Hospital, Boroko-Papua New Guinea
2 Department of Ear, Nose Throat, Port Moresby General Hospital and Division Otolaryngology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea
3 Department of Oromaxillofacial surgery, Port Moresby General Hospital, Natinal Capital District, Papua New Guinea

Correspondence Address:
Charles Paki Molumi
ENT Department, Port Moresby General Hospital, Boroko-Papua New Guinea

Background: Oronasal communication occurs after total maxillectomy for advanced sinonasal cancers. This results in feeding, breathing and cosmetic impairment. Various methods have been described to close off the palatal defect from the oral cavity to improve the function of speech and deglutition. Aims: The object of this article is to describe our experience of preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of clinical and operative records of 31 total maxillectomy patients where oronasal separation was achieved by the conventional technique of applying a maxillary obturator. The postoperative complications arising from the use of maxillary obturator for oronasal communication after total maxillectomy in these 31 patients were analysed. To avoid the complications encountered in these 31 patients we preserved and used the ipsilateral palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation. This new technique was applied in 12 patients. The results are presented and compared. Results : A total of 43 patients underwent total maxillectomy for advanced sinonasal tumors. In 31 patients the conventional maxillary obturator was used for oronasal separation. Among these patients, 30 had crustation of the maxillary cavity, nasal regurgitation and cheek skin retraction in 15 each, trismus in eight, infection of skin graft donor site in seven, cheek movement during respiration in five and ill-fitting prosthesis in three. In 12 patients palatal mucoperiosteum was preserved and used for oronasal separation. The complications encountered in oronasal separation by palatal prosthesis were avoided in the modified procedure. Conclusions: We found that oronasal separation by preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum following total maxillectomy allowed excellent palatal function, prompt rehabilitation and minimal complications without compromising the prognosis.


How to cite this article:
Molumi CP, Dubey SP, Apaio ML. Preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation after total maxillectomy.Indian J Cancer 2012;49:209-214


How to cite this URL:
Molumi CP, Dubey SP, Apaio ML. Preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation after total maxillectomy. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 6 ];49:209-214
Available from: http://www.indianjcancer.com/article.asp?issn=0019-509X;year=2012;volume=49;issue=2;spage=209;epage=214;aulast=Molumi;type=0