<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><bold>Objective: </bold>The aim of this study is to determine the benefits and disadvantages of using micrographic surgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) of the face. We compared the classic surgery with the micrographic surgery by using a prospective randomized comparative study for two groups of patients.<bold>Methods: </bold>Patients included in the study were divided into two groups. The first group was treated by Mohs Surgery. A number of 49 patients who presented 52 tumors were included in this group. In the second group were included 52 patients with 53 tumors. These patients were treated by classic surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up and evaluation of efficacy of the two surgical methods.<bold>Results: </bold>The mean follow-up was one year for the micrographic surgery group and 1.1 years for the classic surgery group. For the micrographic surgery group we noted zero recurrences and for the classic surgery group we had two (3.7%) recurrences in two different patients. Treatment time (surgical excision) was 21 minutes for the classic surgery group and 47 minutes for the micrographic surgery group.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Micrographic surgery remains the gold standard for the treatment of BCC at the head level. Micrographic surgery is the only treatment method which is reporting healing rates over 95% in the majority of studies. A good selection of the cases is mandatory; micrographic surgery should be used for aggressive tumors in difficult location and especially on the face.</abstract>

Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the benefits and disadvantages of using micrographic surgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) of the face. We compared the classic surgery with the micrographic surgery by using a prospective randomized comparative study for two groups of patients.Methods: Patients included in the study were divided into two groups. The first group was treated by Mohs Surgery. A number of 49 patients who presented 52 tumors were included in this group. In the second group were included 52 patients with 53 tumors. These patients were treated by classic surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up and evaluation of efficacy of the two surgical methods.Results: The mean follow-up was one year for the micrographic surgery group and 1.1 years for the classic surgery group. For the micrographic surgery group we noted zero recurrences and for the classic surgery group we had two (3.7%) recurrences in two different patients. Treatment time (surgical excision) was 21 minutes for the classic surgery group and 47 minutes for the micrographic surgery group.Conclusions: Micrographic surgery remains the gold standard for the treatment of BCC at the head level. Micrographic surgery is the only treatment method which is reporting healing rates over 95% in the majority of studies. A good selection of the cases is mandatory; micrographic surgery should be used for aggressive tumors in difficult location and especially on the face.

The Superiority of the Micrographic Surgery Technique in the Surgical Treatment of Facial Basal Cell Carcinomas

Dermatology Clinic, Regional Clinical Emergency Hospital, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Acta Marisiensis - Seria Medica

Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the benefits and disadvantages of using micrographic surgery in the treatment of basal cell carcinomas (BCC)...

The Superiority of the Micrographic Surgery Technique in the Surgical Treatment of Facial Basal Cell Carcinomas

Published Online: Aug 13, 2013

Page range: 64 - 70

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amma-2013-0014

This content is open access.