Search

The aim of surgical management of benign facial skin lumps is to remove the lesion in its entirety, with minimal damage to adjacent tissue structures, while maintaining facial aesthetics. A method to achieve these goals is to remove peri-oral lesions in the labial and buccal zones via an intra-oral approach. We report an extended cases series of facial skin lumps that were excised using an intra-oral approach. A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent excisions of benign cutaneous lesions on the face via an intra-oral approach. Patient demographics, indication for surgery and complications were noted. Forty-seven lesions were excised over a 15-year period. Indications for surgery included benign lesion with minimal skin involvement, risks of keloid/scar hypertrophy and cosmetic factors. Lesions were predominantly epidermoid cysts and lipomas. Mean follow-up was 2.9 years with a 6.4% recurrence rate and 2.1% rate of haematoma and transient facial nerve weakness. There are established techniques to remove facial skin lumps. We believe that in selected cases, an intra-oral approach to such lesions, particularly in cases with high risk of scar pathology or where there is strong patient preference, may be an important tool in the oral and maxillofacial surgeon’s armamentarium.

Open access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery.We investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies.3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals.These findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re- assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscription-only format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.