Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :625
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded456    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2012  |  Volume : 49  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 209-214

Preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation after total maxillectomy

1 ENT Department, Port Moresby General Hospital, Boroko-Papua New Guinea
2 Department of Ear, Nose Throat, Port Moresby General Hospital and Division Otolaryngology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea
3 Department of Oromaxillofacial surgery, Port Moresby General Hospital, Natinal Capital District, Papua New Guinea

Correspondence Address:
Charles Paki Molumi
ENT Department, Port Moresby General Hospital, Boroko-Papua New Guinea

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.102862

Rights and Permissions

Background: Oronasal communication occurs after total maxillectomy for advanced sinonasal cancers. This results in feeding, breathing and cosmetic impairment. Various methods have been described to close off the palatal defect from the oral cavity to improve the function of speech and deglutition. Aims: The object of this article is to describe our experience of preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of clinical and operative records of 31 total maxillectomy patients where oronasal separation was achieved by the conventional technique of applying a maxillary obturator. The postoperative complications arising from the use of maxillary obturator for oronasal communication after total maxillectomy in these 31 patients were analysed. To avoid the complications encountered in these 31 patients we preserved and used the ipsilateral palatal mucoperiosteum for oronasal separation. This new technique was applied in 12 patients. The results are presented and compared. Results : A total of 43 patients underwent total maxillectomy for advanced sinonasal tumors. In 31 patients the conventional maxillary obturator was used for oronasal separation. Among these patients, 30 had crustation of the maxillary cavity, nasal regurgitation and cheek skin retraction in 15 each, trismus in eight, infection of skin graft donor site in seven, cheek movement during respiration in five and ill-fitting prosthesis in three. In 12 patients palatal mucoperiosteum was preserved and used for oronasal separation. The complications encountered in oronasal separation by palatal prosthesis were avoided in the modified procedure. Conclusions: We found that oronasal separation by preservation of palatal mucoperiosteum following total maxillectomy allowed excellent palatal function, prompt rehabilitation and minimal complications without compromising the prognosis.


Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow