Scholarlink

Background <p>The two well-known quality-assessment metrics of head and neck oncosurgery are the status of surgical margin (SM) and lymph node yield (LNY). While the clinical importance of LNY has been well-established, several unresolved controversies around the SM have deterred its practical application.</p> Methods <p>This article reviews some of the issues with the SM and ongoing efforts to improve its clinical application and reliability.</p> Results <p>Several variations exist around SM, regarding its definition, designation, procurement, handling, and pathological processing, which could hinder its reliability. Until newer instruments that could improve the safety of surgical resection are validated robustly and are accessible widely, the surgeons need to adhere to the standardized approach of using the SM in clinical practice.</p> Conclusions <p>Unless not available, the SM based on the surgical specimen should be given priority for all practical purposes over the tissue taken from the surgical bed; with the latter serving only as an intraoperative guide, to facilitate an appropriate margin revision whenever needed and feasible.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessment and interpretation of the status of surgical margins following resective surgery for head and neck squamous cancer: a narrative review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月26日

查看全文
  • K. Devaraja,
  • Alok Thakar,
  • Vinidh Paleri

摘要

Background

The two well-known quality-assessment metrics of head and neck oncosurgery are the status of surgical margin (SM) and lymph node yield (LNY). While the clinical importance of LNY has been well-established, several unresolved controversies around the SM have deterred its practical application.

Methods

This article reviews some of the issues with the SM and ongoing efforts to improve its clinical application and reliability.

Results

Several variations exist around SM, regarding its definition, designation, procurement, handling, and pathological processing, which could hinder its reliability. Until newer instruments that could improve the safety of surgical resection are validated robustly and are accessible widely, the surgeons need to adhere to the standardized approach of using the SM in clinical practice.

Conclusions

Unless not available, the SM based on the surgical specimen should be given priority for all practical purposes over the tissue taken from the surgical bed; with the latter serving only as an intraoperative guide, to facilitate an appropriate margin revision whenever needed and feasible.