Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Nationwide clinical practice variation for reconstructive surgery following oral cavity cancer from the Dutch Head and Neck Audit: are we all doing the same? nstructive Dutch Head

  • Dominique V.C. de Jel*
  • , Hanneke D. van Oorschot
  • , Puck C.A. Meijer
  • , Ludwig E. Smeele
  • , Danny A. Young-Afat
  • , Hinne A. Rakhorst
  • , the Dutch Head and Neck Audit Group
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Netherlands Cancer Institute
  • Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA)
  • Medisch Spectrum Twente
  • Amsterdam UMC
  • Radboud University Medical Center
  • Utrecht University
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre
  • University Medical Centre Groningen
  • Rijnstate Hospital
  • Medical Centre Leeuwarden
  • Dijklander Ziekenhuis, lokatie Hoorn
  • Haaglanden Medisch Centrum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

33 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Quality registries provide real-world data that can drive quality improvement, which often starts with reducing inter-hospital variation. We explored outcomes and the extent of nationwide inter-hospital variation for patients undergoing reconstructive surgery after oral cavity cancer (OCC) using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit (DHNA). Within the DHNA, we selected all OCC patients who underwent curative reconstructive surgery between 2018 and 2022. Patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics were compared, including reconstruction strategies (skin grafting, local transposition, and pedicled and free flaps). Of those treated with free flap reconstruction, postoperative complications were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification and labelled minor (CD 1–2) or major (CD ≥3). A total of 1383 patients were included in the analysis. Especially in the case of patients with stage I tumours (10.1%) there was a wide variation in reconstructive surgery between centres, with a preference for local transposition (42.6%). Free flaps (n = 974) were used most often in patients with a more extensive tumour load (65.4–89.2%), with the radial forearm flap the preferred technique (54.7%, range range 37.1–80.8%). Thirty-four per cent of patients treated with a free flap had postoperative complications, with 38 cases of total flap loss (overall 3.9% complications). Strategies and percentages varied widely across centres, showing high inter-hospital variation in applied techniques and outcomes, and the need for national data improvement. Level of evidence: II.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)195-202
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume63
Issue number3
Early online date6 Nov 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Nationwide clinical practice variation for reconstructive surgery following oral cavity cancer from the Dutch Head and Neck Audit: are we all doing the same? nstructive Dutch Head'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this