The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

• Published in: The Laryngoscope Vol. 129; no. 2; pp. 409 - 414
• Main Authors: Rosen, Evan B., Palin, Charles L., Huryn, Joseph M., Wong, Richard J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-02-2019
• Subjects: Amputation; Cancer Care Facilities - statistics & numerical data; cancer center; Comprehensive Health Care - statistics & numerical data; Cross-Sectional Studies; Head & neck cancer; head and neck cancer; Head and Neck Neoplasms - surgery; Humans; Maxillofacial Prosthesis - statistics & numerical data; Maxillofacial Prosthesis Implantation - statistics & numerical data; Maxillofacial prosthetics; National Cancer Institute (U.S.); Prostheses; surgical oncology; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; United States; Maxillofacial prosthetics; cancer center; head and neck cancer; surgical oncology
• ISSN: 0023-852X; 1531-4995
• DOI: 10.1002/lary.27330

Objectives/Hypothesis
The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care.
Study Design
Multicenter, cross‐sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers.
Methods
Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported.
Results
Twenty‐eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost‐related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care.
Conclusions
Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers.
Level of Evidence
NA Laryngoscope, 129:409–414, 2019