Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:00:24.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should we use fingerbreadth measurements in submandibular gland surgery? A critical appraisal of the technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2014

C Smyth ,
C Jackson ,
C Smith  and
R Adair
C Smyth*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
C Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
C Smith
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
R Adair
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK Department of ENT, Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Ms Catherine Smyth, c/o ENT Secretariat, Royal Victoria Hospital, 274 Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland, UK E-mail: cathy_smyth@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Having observed variation in the breadth of surgeons' fingers whilst they are placing the incision for submandibular gland surgery, we aimed to examine this technique of incision siting, quantify the differences in fingerbreadths and consider any consequences of variability.

Methods:

Surgeons trained in salivary gland surgery were questioned on their method of incision placement for submandibular gland surgery. The breadth of index and middle fingers were subsequently measured using Vernier calipers.

Results:

The majority of surgeons use a measure of two fingerbreadths below the mandible in planning their approach to the submandibular gland. There is a significant difference in the size of surgeons' fingers, particularly between men and women (mean, 4.2 cm vs 3.6 cm).

Conclusion:

Fingerbreadth measurements are somewhat arbitrary, with significant inter-surgeon variability. However, based on the results of cadaveric studies, the findings indicate that the technique is safe for marking the incision in submandibular surgery.

Keywords

Submandibular GlandFacial NerveAnatomic LandmarksIntraoperative Complications
Type
Short Communication
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 932 - 934
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Smith, WP, Peters, WJ, Markus, AF. Submandibular gland surgery: an audit of clinical findings, pathology and postoperative morbidity. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75:164–7Google ScholarPubMed
2De, M, Kumar Singh, P, Johnson, AP. Morbidity associated with submandibular gland excision: a retrospective analysis. The Internet Journal of Head and Neck Surgery 2007;1(1)Google Scholar
3Gleeson, M, Browning, GG, Burton, MJ, Clarke, R, Hibbert, J, Jones, NS et al. Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 7th edn.London: Hodder Arnold, 2008Google Scholar
4Watkinson, JC, Gaze, NG, Wilson, JA. Stell & Maran's Head and Neck Surgery, 4th edn.Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000Google Scholar
5Bailey, BJ, Johnson, JT, Newlands, SD. Head and Neck Surgery: Otolaryngology, 4th edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006Google Scholar
6Thumfart, WF, Platzer, W, Gunkel, AR, Maurer, H, Brenner, E. Surgical Approaches in Otorhinolaryngology. New York: Thieme, 1999Google Scholar
7Rödel, R, Lang, J. Studies of the course of the marginal mandibular branch of the facial mandibular nerve [in German]. Laryngorhinootologie 1996;75:368–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Wang, TM, Lin, CL, Kuo, KJ, Shih, C. Surgical anatomy of the mandibular ramus of the facial nerve in Chinese adults. Acta Anat (Basel) 1991;142:126–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Elston, MA. Women and medicine: the future. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2009Google Scholar