BackgroundLarge anatomical variations occur during the course of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). The risks are therefore a parotid glands (PG) overdose and a xerostomia increase.The purposes of the study were to estimate:- the PG overdose and the xerostomia risk increase during a “standard” IMRT (IMRTstd);- the benefits of an adaptive IMRT (ART) with weekly replanning to spare the PGs and limit the risk of xerostomia.Material and methodsFifteen patients received radical IMRT (70 Gy) for LAHNC. Weekly CTs were used to estimate the dose distributions delivered during the treatment, corresponding either to the initial planning (IMRTstd) or to weekly replanning (ART). PGs dose were recalculated at the fraction, from the weekly CTs. PG cumulated doses were then estimated using deformable image registration. The following PG doses were compared: pre-treatment planned dose, per-treatment IMRTstd and ART. The corresponding estimated risks of xerostomia were also compared. Correlations between anatomical markers and dose differences were searched.ResultsCompared to the initial planning, a PG overdose was observed during IMRTstd for 59% of the PGs, with an average increase of 3.7 Gy (10.0 Gy maximum) for the mean dose, and of 8.2% (23.9% maximum) for the risk of xerostomia. Compared to the initial planning, weekly replanning reduced the PG mean dose for all the patients (p < 0.05). In the overirradiated PG group, weekly replanning reduced the mean dose by 5.1 Gy (12.2 Gy maximum) and the absolute risk of xerostomia by 11% (p < 0.01) (30% maximum). The PG overdose and the dosimetric benefit of replanning increased with the tumor shrinkage and the neck thickness reduction (p < 0.001).ConclusionDuring the course of LAHNC IMRT, around 60% of the PGs are overdosed of 4 Gy. Weekly replanning decreased the PG mean dose by 5 Gy, and therefore by 11% the xerostomia risk.

No abstract

Tracheotomy is widely used in intensive care units, albeit with great disparities between medical teams in terms of frequency and modality. Indications and techniques are, however, associated with variable levels of evidence based on inhomogeneous or even contradictory literature. Our aim was to conduct a systematic analysis of the published data in order to provide guidelines. We present herein recommendations for the use of tracheotomy in adult critically ill patients developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. These guidelines were conducted by a group of experts from the French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française) and the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Francaise d’Anesthésie Réanimation) with the participation of the French Emergency Medicine Association (Société Française de Médecine d’Urgence), the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology. Sixteen experts and two coordinators agreed to consider questions concerning tracheotomy and its practical implementation. Five topics were defined: indications and contraindications for tracheotomy in intensive care, tracheotomy techniques in intensive care, modalities of tracheotomy in intensive care, management of patients undergoing tracheotomy in intensive care, and decannulation in intensive care. The summary made by the experts and the application of GRADE methodology led to the drawing up of 8 formal guidelines, 10 recommendations, and 3 treatment protocols. Among the 8 formal guidelines, 2 have a high level of proof (Grade 1+/−) and 6 a low level of proof (Grade 2+/−). For the 10 recommendations, GRADE methodology was not applicable and instead 10 expert opinions were produced.

The overall risk of reccurence was 22.5%. Recurrence was represented by the presence of CSF rhinorrhea in 12.5% and the appearance of meningitis in 10% of patients. The overall risk of postoperative anosmia was 27.5%. A wait and see policy led to a higher risk of developing meningitis than surgical repair (p = 0.0003). The absence of pretherapeutic topographical diagnosis led to a higher risk of recurrence of CSF rhinorrhea (p = 0.01). The endonasal approach resulted in less postoperative anosmia (p = 0.006).

This study demonstrated that the choice of a natural (aprotinin) or synthetic (tranexamic acid) antifibrinolytic agent in the fibrin sealant associated with calcium phosphate granules and used as a bone substitute had no effect on the bioactivity of the composite. It remained efficient in bone reconstruction, no adverse effects were observed, and the bony ingrowth was qualitatively and quantitatively equivalent with the two types of fibrin sealant.

BackgroundIndication and extent of lateral prophylactic neck dissection (PLND) in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is very controversial.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed 131 patients who underwent thyroidectomy and prophylactic lateral neck dissection from level II to V for PTC.Results140 PLND were performed. The occult lymph node metastases (OLNM) overall rate was 18.6%. The incidence of node involvement was 10% at level III and 6.4% at level IIa. Level IV and level Vb were both concerned by 5.7% OLNM. Only 2.9% of level IIb contained OLNM. None of the level Va ND revealed OLNM.ConclusionsOLNM from PTC occurs commonly in level IIa, III, IV and Vb. Incidence in other levels is low. For surgeons that usually perform PLND, we believe that a selective neck dissection of levels IIa, III, IV and Vb in N0 neck PTC is sufficient for the clearance of occult metastases.

No abstract

In first-line, clearing out blood-clots and bidigital compression are recommended. In case of persistent bleeding, local anesthesia with a vasoconstrictor is essential before nasal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. When the origin of bleeding is not anterior, nasal endoscopy is an essential procedure, identifying the bleeding site in most cases. In case of active bleeding, cauterization is recommended but is only feasible if the bleeding site is clearly visible. When the bleeding site is not identifiable or the first measures failed, anterior packing may be performed by a non-specialist physician. Epistaxis requires subsequent nasal endoscopy performed by an ENT specialist. Patients should be informed of the measures to be taken in case of epistaxis at home, and the risks associated with the various treatments.