Skip to main content

Table 1 Clinicopathologic characteristics of 29 patients

From: Retrospective analysis on prognosis of oral cancer patients according to surgical approaches for effective cancer ablation: swing approach versus visor approach

  

Swing approach (n = 16)

Visor approach (n = 13)

P-value*

Sex

Male

11 (68.8%)

8 (61.5%)

0.7141

Female

5 (31.2%)

5 (38.5%)

Age (Mean: 57.8)

 > 60

11 (68.8%)

8 (61.5%)

0.7141

 ≤ 60

5 (31.2%)

5 (38.5%)

Mean

54.6

61.7

Drinking

O

6 (37.5%)

6 (46.2%)

0.7163

X

10 (62.5%)

7 (53.8%)

Smoking

O

4 (25.0%)

3 (23.1%)

1.0000

X

12 (75.0%)

10 (76.9%)

Primary site

Mandible

9 (56.2%)

8 (61.5%)

1.0000

FOM*, tongue

7 (43.8%)

5 (38.5%)

Tumor size

T1-T2

3 (18.8%)

7 (53.8%)

0.0641

T3-T4

13 (81.2%)

6 (46.2%)

Clinical stage

I, II

1 (6.2%)

2 (15.4%)

0.5731

III, IV

15 (93.8%)

11 (84.6%)

Pathologic stage

I, II

2 (12.5%)

4 (30.8%)

0.3640

III,IV

14 (87.5%)

9 (69.2%)

Histopathologic grade

Well-differentiated

12 (75.0%)

2 (15.4%)

*0.0025

Moderately differentiated

4 (25.0%)

11 (84.6%)

Flap used for reconstruction

RFFF*

5 (31.2%)

9 (69.2%)

0.3647

FFF*

9 (56.3%)

4 (30.8%)

ALT FF*

2 (12.5%)

(-)

Neck dissection

SOHND*

13 (81.3%)

10 (76.9%)

1.0000

mRND*

3 (18.7%)

3 (23.1%)

  1. *FOM floor of mouth, RFFF radial forearm free flap, FFF fibula free flap, ALT FF antero-lateral thigh free flap, SOHND supra-omohyoid neck dissection, mRND modified radical neck dissection
  2. P-value*: by Fisher’s exact t-test