Objectives Objective evaluation of the ergonomic risk of common otolaryngology procedures and assessment of work-related musculoskeletal pain and injury. Study Design Cross-sectional intraoperative assessment and survey. Setting Department of Otolaryngology at a tertiary children’s hospital. Subjects and Methods Sixteen otolaryngology attendings, fellows, and residents participated in a blinded study. Intraoperative ergonomics was assessed for tonsillectomies, adenoidectomies, and tympanostomy tube insertions using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Follow-up surveys were sent to all participating surgeons to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and formal ergonomic training. Results Zero percent (N = 0/275) of intraoperative observations were found to have a negligible level of ergonomic risk, with 47% low risk, 37% high risk, and 16% very high risk. Tympanostomy tube insertions conferred less risk than tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, while the use of headlamp or loupes conferred increased risk. Eighty percent of respondents reported having musculoskeletal pain and 40% reported experiencing pain while operating within the past year. The most common area of pain was the cervical spine. No surgeons reported formal ergonomic training. Conclusions Our study demonstrates an unacceptable level of ergonomic risk for common procedures in otolaryngology. Furthermore, most participants reported experiencing musculoskeletal pain despite the duration of examined procedures being relatively short. The high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal pain and the lack of ergonomic training in our cohort highlight the need for increased awareness of ergonomics as well as the development of formal ergonomic curricula.
Introduction A substantial body of literature has been devoted to the distinct characteristics and surgical options to repair the skull base. However, the skull base is an anatomically challenging location that requires a three-dimensional reconstruction approach. Furthermore, advances in endoscopic skull base surgery encompass a wide range of surgical pathology, from benign tumors to sinonasal cancer. This has resulted in the creation of wide defects that yield a new challenge in skull base reconstruction. Progress in technology and imaging has made this approach an internationally accepted method to repair these defects. Objectives Discuss historical developments and flaps available for skull base reconstruction. Data Synthesis Free grafts in skull base reconstruction are a viable option in small defects and low-flow leaks. Vascularized flaps pose a distinct advantage in large defects and high-flow leaks. When open techniques are used, free flap reconstruction techniques are often necessary to repair large entry wound defects. Conclusions Reconstruction of skull base defects requires a thorough knowledge of surgical anatomy, disease, and patient risk factors associated with high-flow cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Various reconstruction techniques are available, from free tissue grafting to vascularized flaps. Possible complications that can befall after these procedures need to be considered. Although endonasal techniques are being used with increasing frequency, open techniques are still necessary in selected cases.
The surgical management of perineural spread of head and neck cancers has become an integral part in the contemporary treatment of this pathology. We now understand that tumour spreads within the epineurium and in a continuous fashion. We also can rely on the accuracy of magnetic resonance neurography in detecting and defining the extent of disease. With modern skull base techniques and a greater understanding of the anatomy in this region, specific operations can be designed to help eradicate disease. We review the current approaches and techniques used that enable us to better obtain tumour free margins and hence improve survival.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.