• Users Online: 89
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-7

Total glossectomy: Technique review


Department of Head and Neck Oncology, Cytecare Cancer Hospitals, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission02-Jun-2020
Date of Decision02-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance03-Jun-2020
Date of Web Publication18-Jun-2020

Correspondence Address:
Vikram D Kekatpure
Cytecare Cancer Hospital, Yelahanka, Bengaluru - 560 064, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_23_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Advanced cancers of oral tongue and recurrent/residual tumors arising from base of tongue may require total glossectomy for curative intent treatment. This procedure is considered morbid due to possibility of life threatening aspiration. This review discusses the technical nuances to reduce functional morbidity. The pull through resection technique allows a compartmental resection of these tumors with adequate margin control without a need for mandibulotomy. Selection of appropriate flap to replace bulk and laryngeal suspension are essential components of reconstruction. With application of these technical advances and adequate post-operative swallow therapy, patients undergoing total glossectomy have acceptable functional outcome.

Keywords: Compartmental resection, microvascular reconstruction, total glossectomy


How to cite this article:
Neelakantan V, Shetkar GS, Kekatpure VD. Total glossectomy: Technique review. J Head Neck Physicians Surg 2020;8:3-7

How to cite this URL:
Neelakantan V, Shetkar GS, Kekatpure VD. Total glossectomy: Technique review. J Head Neck Physicians Surg [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 5];8:3-7. Available from: https://www.jhnps.org/text.asp?2020/8/1/3/287152




  Introduction Top


Standard of care treatment for oral cavity cancers requires surgical resection followed by adjuvant treatment as required. While for oropharyngeal cancers, a nonsurgical modality (radiation or chemoradiation) is preferred as an organ preservation modality. Advanced oral cavity lesions, particularly of the tongue and the floor of the mouth (FOM), and oropharyngeal cancers are associated with several morbidities such as pain, speech, and swallowing difficulty and breathing difficulty. For patients with locally advanced lesion involving oral tongue or recurrent lesions of base of tongue, total glossectomy provides an option of free margin resection and curative intent treatment.[1] Total glossectomy as a procedure was generally condemned due to perceived functional morbidity and poor oncological outcomes. Total glossectomy for tongue cancers was first described by Kremer in 1951. With limited availability of reconstructive options, aspiration and feeding tube dependence was dreaded complications.[2] In 1979, the pectoralis major musculocutaneous flap was introduced for head-and neck reconstructions, especially after total glossectomy. Recent advances in reconstruction armamentarium with the introduction of microsurgical flaps have enabled significant improvements in reconstruction techniques for complex defects with improvement in functional outcome. Still, functional rehabilitation of total glossectomy patients remains a challenge.[3] The aim of this review is to provide an overview of total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation, its indications, evaluation, surgical technique, and functional and oncological outcomes.


  Anatomy, Functions, and Role of the Tongue Top


Human tongue is a complex muscular organ made up mainly of skeletal muscle tissue and is defined as dynamic hydrostat. These muscles contract and relax in tandem providing substance with the oral cavity and induce motion. This aids in speech and swallowing (oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing) and has a major role in normal breathing process.[4] The tongue comprises four intrinsic (transversalis, verticalis, superior, and inferior longitudinal) and four extrinsic (genioglossus, hyoglossus, styloglossus, and palatoglossus) groups of muscles, the former group contained totally within the tongue substance, and the latter attached to a point outside the body of tongue and inserted into it. The function of the intrinsic muscles is to alter the shape of the tongue, whereas the extrinsic helps to move the tongue in various directions. The interweaving patterns of the fibers of the different muscle groups of the tongue give its high maneuverability and strength. The tongue merges anteriorly and laterally with the FOM, a horseshoe-shaped area that is confined peripherally by the inner aspect (lingual surface) of the mandible. Posterolaterally, the tonsillolingual sulcus separates the tongue from the tonsil fossa. Posteriorly, the vallecula separates the base of the tongue from the lingual surface of the epiglottis. On the undersurface, the tongue is supported by geniohyoid and the mylohyoid muscles; the mylohyoid muscle serves as the diaphragm of the mouth and separates the tongue and FOM from the submental and submandibular triangles of the neck.[5] McConnel et al. proposed a concept of two-pump system consisting of a propulsion pump and a hypopharyngeal suction pump. The propulsive force is generated by the tongue which pushes the bolus toward the laryngeal introitus. The hypopharyngeal suction force was the negative pressure generated at the level of the cricopharyngeus during laryngeal elevation.[6]

The management of advanced carcinomas of the tongue requires a consideration of the entire anatomic subunit comprising the tongue, mandible, FOM with mylohyoid diaphragm, suprahyoid muscles, and the hyoid-laryngeal complex along with the intervening neurovascular structures. This compartment concept is applicable to both the resection of the tumor and subsequent reconstruction. From the surgical standpoint, resection of these tumors needs the removal of the entire compartment for oncologic clearance.[7] Following total glossectomy, besides articulation, both oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing are grossly affected, and with the absence of laryngeal elevation during swallowing, patients are at increased risk of aspiration. These anatomical and physiological considerations form the basis of functional reconstruction following total glossectomy.


  Indications for Total Glossectomy Top


Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation was considered for patients presenting under these five categories,[8]

  1. Large primary tumors (T3 or T4) of the tongue and tongue base without the involvement of the vallecula and the preepiglottic space
  2. Recurrent or residual tumors of the tongue, base of the tongue following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy
  3. Nonsquamous tumors arising or extending to the base of the tongue
  4. Primary, second, or third primary tumors of the tongue/tongue base.



  Preoperative Assessment/evaluation Top


  1. Clinical assessment: To assess the extent of induration with palpation and also involvement of the mandible and/or FOM and tongue base
  2. Panendoscopy: Assess the involvement of the posterior one-third of the tongue/vallecula/tonsillar area, and tonsillolingual sulcus
  3. Computed tomography (CT) scan/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): To assess the extent radiologically and to determine resectability. In majority of the situations, it is difficult to assess clinically due to pain, tenderness, or trismus. MRI provides better information on tissue extension within the tongue and may demonstrate perineural invasion [Figure 1]b and [Figure 2]b
  4. Physical fitness, pulmonary reserve, and cognitive function
  5. Whether total laryngectomy is required when tumor extends to the preepiglottic space and/or epiglottis or when patients are unlikely to tolerate a degree of aspiration
  6. Mandible: Tumor may extend across the FOM to involve the periosteum/invade the inner cortex or involve medullary bone. MRI is superior for assessing medullary bone involvement. The extent of resection (marginal or hemimandibulectomy) is planned accordingly
  7. Plan for temporary tracheostomy, for possible airway compromise related to bulky flap, immediate postoperative edema and loss of adequate laryngeal suspension following the division of the mylohyoid, geniohyoid, and digastric muscles
  8. Type of reconstruction: Assessment for microvascularized free flap or regional flap depending on the body habitus/ medical status of the patient
  9. Anesthesia: Fiber-optic guided nasotracheal intubation/or preoperative tracheostomy in case of difficult intubation
  10. Intraoperative evaluation for reassessing the extent of primary tumor, especially for the posterior and lateral extension.[9]
Figure 1: Total glossectomy – diagrammatic representation. (a) Primary tumor – tongue – clinical view. (b) Primary tumor – tongue – coronal view. (c) Flap raising – inferior view. (d) Intraoral – flap reflection. (e) Incision marking – intra- and extraoral. (f) Flap inset, laryngeal suspension

Click here to view
Figure 2: Total glossectomy – clinical representation. (a) Primary tumor – tongue – clinical view. (b) CECT – tongue – coronal view. (c) Neck – pull through. (d) Total glossectomy defect. (e) Flap inset and laryngeal suspension. (f) Postoperative follow-up at 4 months

Click here to view



  Total Glossectomy-Technique Top


Definition

Total glossectomy encompasses a compartmental removal of the entire oral (anterior two-third) and base (posterior one-third) of the tongue musculature along with intervening neurovascular bundles.

Access

Good surgical access is essential to attain adequate resection margins, hemostasis, and reconstruction. A combined transcervical and transoral approach is usually preferred [Figure 1]a and [Figure 1]c and [Figure 2]a and [Figure 2]c. Other approaches include lip split combined with mandibulotomy or segmental mandibulectomy if required for tumor clearance.

Resection

Transcervical markings for the incision placed and subplatysmal flap raised. Adequate exposure is obtained from the angle to the opposite side angle of the mandible. The inferior border of the mandible is identified, and the periosteum is incised along the entire inferior border. Anterior bellies of the digastric muscles and the mylohyoid are separated. Soft tissues on the medial aspect of the mandible are then stripped in a subperiosteal plane. Mylohoid muscle is separated from its attachment along mylohyoid line. Geniohyoid muscle is freed from the inferior mental spine. Depending on the extent of the tumor, the decision regarding marginal/segmental mandibulectomy is decided. Then, transoral incision is placed with adequate margins with respect to the tumor, usually over the gingival mucosa along the alveolar ridge. After adequate mucosal cuts and release along the tonsillar pillars, the tongue is delivered into the neck [Figure 1]d and [Figure 1]e and [Figure 2]c and [Figure 2]d. This permits visualization and assessment of the posterior extent of the lesion (vallecula, the base of the tongue, and supraglottic area).

Extended resections

  1. Mandibular resection: either a marginal or segmental mandibulectomy is performed depending on the involvement/tumor extent clinically or radiologically[10]
  2. With total laryngectomy: If the posterior extent of the lesion involves epiglottis and preepiglottic fat/infiltrating hyoid[11]
  3. Supraglottic laryngectomy: Total glossectomy with supraglottic resection has been described by a few authors for limited laryngeal involvement.[12]



  Principles of Glossectomy Reconstruction Top


  1. Prevention of aspiration
  2. Oral-neck separation
  3. Restore tongue volume
  4. Restore propulsive swallowing force
  5. Laryngeal suspension
  6. Restore clarity of speech.[13]


Selection of reconstructive options

A variety of flaps have been described for the reconstruction of total glossectomy defects which include both locoregional and free flaps. Rectus abdominis, anterolateral thigh, gracilis and latissimus dorsi are commonly used free flap, while pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, latissimus dorsi are among the frequently used regional flaps. Recent trends favor free flaps for superior swallowing and speech outcomes.[14] Furthermore, an individualized decision regarding the flap should be based on the body habitus to determine the adequate bulk. Loss of flap volume and the downward traction of the pedicle are a few to mention with the suboptimal outcomes associated with regional flap stated in most series; however, a study by Tiwari et al. has reported good functional outcomes with regional flaps.[8]

Volume or bulk of restoration

The most critical part in reconstruction of total glossectomy defects is the bulk of the flap [Figure 2]f. It aids in propelling the food into the oropharynx and also to reduce resonance to produce intelligible speech. Kimata et al. in their series of 30 glossectomy defects categorized neotongue shapes as protuberant, semi-protuberant, and flat or recessed and showed statistical significance with respect to shapes (protuberant, semi–protuberant, and flat or recessed) neotongue with respect to speech and food scores. Furthermore, the flap bulk helps to divert the saliva and food into the lateral gutters minimizing aspiration during swallowing. Taking the loss of volume over a period of time to consideration, it is wise to reconstruct 30% in excess to the actual defect size to compensate the periodic loss.[15]

Laryngeal suspension

Suspension of the larynx projects it upward and frontward into an anatomical position required for swallowing, and methods such as epiglottopexy, surgical closure of the glottis, and laryngotracheal separation have also been mentioned in literature to prevent aspiration but not routinely practiced. The technique is usually to suspend over the anterior mandibular arch, and in case of anterior arch resection, suspending it from angle or condyle is also an option [Figure 1]f and [Figure 2]e. Calcaterra and Godde advocated laryngeal suspension in patients undergoing supraglottic laryngectomy and found decreased incidence of aspiration and also facilitated deglutition by effectively diverting food into lateral gutters.[16] Weber et al. in their series also found no aspiration in 12 patients with laryngeal suspension in comparison with 15 patients without laryngeal suspension.[17]

Motor and sensory innervation of flap

Theoretically, it has been postulated that providing a sensate reconstruction enables detecting the presence of food in the oral cavity which can be moved during mastication and then aids in deglutition.[12] There is a lack of data to compare benefits of motor innervation of flaps. Reanimation of the muscle containing flaps may contribute to the prevention of muscle atrophy rather than functional movement. However, the benefit of muscle innervation to overall functional outcome remains investigational.

Speech and swallow therapy

A key point in rehabilitation is a postoperative speech and swallow therapy to improve the functional outcome following total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation. A study by Dziegielewski et al. reported superior speech and functional outcomes in patients who attended more than 80% of swallowing and speech rehabilitation sessions.[18]


  Measuring Functional Outcomes Top


Functional outcomes of the reconstructed tongue depend mainly on the volume of the flap replaced. This, in turn, affects swallowing function [Table 1] and speech intelligibility [Table 2], as it has a positive correlation. It is important to analyze and correlate between function including swallowing and speech intelligibility and volume of the neotongue [Table 3].[19]
Table 1: Swallowing intelligibility

Click here to view
Table 2: Speech intelligibility

Click here to view
Table 3: Volume measurement

Click here to view



  Conclusion Top


Total glossectomy is a procedure required for advanced tumors of oral tongue, recurrent/residual, or nonsquamous tumors of the base of the tongue. Life-threatening aspiration and swallowing difficulties are dreaded complications. However, with appropriate selection of flaps and techniques like laryngeal suspension, this procedure has acceptable functional outcomes.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Disclosure

This material has never been published and is not currently under evaluation in any other peer reviewed publication.

Ethical approval

The permission was taken from Institutional Ethics Committee prior to starting the project. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.[20]



 
  References Top

1.
Vartanian JG, Magrin J, Kowalski LP. Total glossectomy in the organ preservation era. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;18:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kremen AJ. Cancer of the tongue; a surgical technique for a primary combined en bloc resection of tongue, floor of mouth, and cervical lymphatics. Surgery 1951;30:227-40.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ariyan S. The pectoralis major myocutaneous flap. A versatile flap for reconstruction in the head and neck. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979;63:73-81.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Kajee Y, Pelteret JP, Reddy BD. The biomechanics of the human tongue. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 2013;29:492-514.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Takemoto H. Morphological analyses of the human tongue musculature for three-dimensional modeling. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001;44:95-107.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
McConnel FM, Cerenko D, Mendelsohn MS. Manofluorographic analysis of swallowing. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1988;21:625-35.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Calabrese L, Giugliano G, Bruschini R, Ansarin M, Navach V, Grosso E, et al. Compartmental surgery in tongue tumours: Description of a new surgical technique. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009;29:259-64.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Tiwari R, Karim ABMF, Greven AJ, Snow GB. Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg 1993;119:945-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Fagan J. Open Access Atlas of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Operative Surgery: Volume 1 - Head and Neck. Open Access Atlas of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Operative Surgery: Volume 1 - Head and Neck. University of Cape Town Libraries; 2016. https://doi.org/10.15641/0-7992-2534-1.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chang EI, Yu P, Skoracki RJ, Liu J, Hanasono MM. Comprehensive analysis of functional outcomes and survival after microvascular reconstruction of glossectomy defects. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:3061-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Shedd DP, Scatliff JA, Kirchner JA. A cineradiographic study of postresectional alterations in oropharyngeal physiology. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1960;110:69-89.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gehanno P, Guedon C, Barry B, Depondt J, Kebaili C. Advanced carcinoma of the tongue: Total glossectomy without total laryngectomy. Review of 80 cases. Laryngoscope 1992;102:1369-71.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Werning JW, editor. 17 Reconstruction of the tongue. In: Oral Cancer: Diagnosis, Management, and Rehabilitation. Georg Thieme Verlag; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Yu P, Robb GL. Reconstruction for total and near-total glossectomy defects. Clin Plast Surg 2005;32:411-9, vii.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Kimata Y, Sakuraba M, Hishinuma S, Ebihara S, Hayashi R, Asakage T, et al. Analysis of the relations between the shape of the reconstructed tongue and postoperative functions after subtotal or total glossectomy. Laryngoscope 2003;113:905-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Calcaterra TC. Laryngeal suspension after supraglottic laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol 1971;94:306-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Weber RS, Ohlms L, Bowman J, Jacob R, Goepfert H. Functional results after total or near total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;117:512-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Dziegielewski PT, Ho ML, Rieger J, Singh P, Langille M, Harris JR, et al. Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation and free flap reconstruction: Objective functional outcomes and systematic review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2013;123:140-5.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Urken ML, Moscoso JF, Lawson W, Biller HF. A systematic approach to functional reconstruction of the oral cavity following partial and total glossectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:589-601.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Sultan MR, Coleman JJ 3rd. Oncologic and functional considerations of total glossectomy. Am J Surg 1989;158:297-302.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Anatomy, Functio...
Indications for ...
Preoperative Ass...
Total Glossectom...
Principles of Gl...
Measuring Functi...
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1835    
    Printed100    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded208    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]