BACKGROUND Diagnosing penile cancer and grading the same with available diagnostic tools is not difficult, but the problem lies in the management and more so in groin node dissection. Lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice in patients presenting with positive node at the time of diagnosis, but problem arises in deciding node negative patients. Our aim was to evaluate role of prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of penis. METHODS This was a prospective study carried out at MKCG Medical College and Hospital from 2012 to 2017. The clinical, diagnostic and follow-up data were collected from patient records. RESULTS A total 30 cases of penile carcinoma were included in the present study. Youngest patient was 29 years of age and oldest was of 78 years. 18 patients showed inguinal lymphadenopathy at the time of diagnosis. FNAC showed node positivity in 10 cases. 2 out of 8 cytologically negative lymph nodes for metastatic deposits came out to be positive after biopsy. Histologically majority diagnosed as moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and were in stage 2. 2 patients diagnosed as verrucous carcinoma. Radical inguinal lymphadenectomy was done in all patients with cytologically proven metastatic deposits, modified radical dissection done in cytologically negative lymphadenopathy cases. In remaining patients of carcinoma penis, without inguinal node involvement, an individualistic approach was undertaken.
Aim: The aim was to compare the use of a piezoelectric handpiece versus a standard surgical handpiece in removal of impacted third molars under general anaesthesia. Materials and methods: Thirty patients undergoing routine third molar removal were included in the study. Panoramic radiographs were used to assess the positioning of the impacted third molars. The patients were randomly subdivided and the split mouth technique was used in which each side (left or right) of the mouth was randomly assigned to two treatment groups. Hence each patient served as their own control. In one group, a piezoelectric handpiece was used, while a conventional handpiece was used for the second group. All aspects of preoperative care, general anaesthesia, surgery and postoperative care were standardised for the two groups. The following parameters were recorded; time of surgery, bleeding during surgery, post-operative swelling, post-operative pain, associated complications and post-operative nerve injury. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of pain and swelling. There was less bleeding with the use of the piezoelectric device as compared with the standard surgical handpiece; however, the surgical time was longer. There were no reports of trauma to the lips or intra-oral soft tissue. There were two incidences (6.7%) of post-operative paraesthesia in the standard surgical handpiece group. Conclusions: The use of a piezoelectric device is an acceptable alternative to the standard surgical handpiece in third molar surgery. Its use is advocated in difficult cases especially where there is inferior alveolar nerve approximation. Clinical relevance Scientific rationale for studyTo compare piezoelectric handpiece with a standard surgical handpiece in removal of impacted third molars in terms of post-operative pain, swelling, bleeding and nerve injuries. Principal findingsBoth modalities showed similar post-operative pain and swelling. Intraoperative bleeding was less in the piezoelectric device; however, the surgical time was longer. There was no post-operative paraesthesia in the piezoelectric group while 6.7% incidence in the standard handpiece group. Practical implicationsPiezoelectric handpiece is best reserved for difficult and deeply impacted third molars with nerve approximation otherwise standard surgical handpiece remains the gold standard.
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.