Purpose of review To review the recent literature on indications for and functional outcomes following laryngectomy for severe laryngeal dysfunction. Recent findings The use of functional laryngectomy as a definitive treatment for severe laryngeal dysfunction is increasing as more patients with head and neck cancer are treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Data are emerging on the efficacy of this technique as measured by aspiration, recurrent pneumonias, enteral tube feeding dependence, and surgical complication rates. Though most patients have marked improvement in aspiration and oral intake, difficulties in swallowing and voicing functions may persist. Summary Functional laryngectomy is an effective treatment for end-stage laryngeal dysfunction. There is a clear benefit with regard to prevention of aspiration and alleviation of nothing by mouth status. However, qualitative speech and swallowing outcomes are less well studied, though available data suggest that many patients still suffer some degree of continued chronic impairment. More research is needed on these outcomes in order to appropriately counsel patients regarding long-term functional outcomes.
Purpose of review To highlight three clinical arenas in which head and neck free-flap compromise is encountered and acted upon: nonoperative, operative and postoperative realms. Recent findings Time to identification and intervention is paramount to successful free-flap salvage. Surgical microvascular revision remains chief amongst strategies to revert vascular compromise of a free-flap. Adjuncts, such as thrombolytics and systemic anticoagulation have an important role in the complex work of microvascular free tissue care. Venous congestion of free flaps holds favorable for salvage when compared with arterial insufficiency. Summary Vascular compromise of head and neck free flaps is a rare and feared event for microvascular surgeons, with successful transfers rates approaching above 95%. Success in salvage is dependent on prompt identification of tissue compromise and timely, directed interventions to re-establish tissue perfusion.
Objective: Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the market with the claim of relieving foreign body aspiration. Both devices are portable, nonpowered, suction devices that are being considered for use in large public spaces such as schools, airports, and malls despite previous studies detailing variable efficacy. In this study, we aim to contribute further data on the safety and efficacy of these devices through a fresh cadaver model.Methods: Commonly aspirated foods of three different sizes (saltines, grapes, and cashews) were placed at the level of the true vocal folds in a fresh cadaver. Three participants performed two trials with each food and device. Device use was performed to manufacturer specifications. Results:The DeChoker resulted in gross injury to the tongue and failed to remove the obstruction in all trials. LifeVac was successful in removing the barium-moistened saltines but failed to remove all other foreign bodies. Both devices applied significant pressure to the tongue. Conclusion:With the exception of the LifeVac removing saltine crackers, all trials were entirely unsuccessful in relieving foreign body aspiration. Additionally, both devices may cause significant pressure and injury to the oral cavity in a clinical setting. We conclude bystanders should continue to follow International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's guidelines on resuscitation to aid with relieving foreign body aspiration.
Objectives: To elucidate the frequency and types of pre- and post-interview communication that applicants engage with programs, to garner the perceptions of both applicants and program directors (PDs), and determine if communication influences outcomes. Subjects and Methods: Electronic surveys were distributed to otolaryngology residency applicants, and to PDs of ACGME-accredited otolaryngology programs after the 2018 to 2019 application cycle. Results: 93 of 324 applicants (28.7%) and 33 of 106 PDs (31.3%) responded. In the pre-interview period, 58.1% of applicants sent emails of interest, and 41.9% had a mentor initiate communication. In the post-interview period, the majority of applicants (82.8%) sent notes of intent to their number one choice, and 32.3% had a faculty mentor communicate this on their behalf. The majority of PDs (84.8%) were undecided or did not believe that emails of interest influence decisions to offer an interview, whereas 81.8% believed that communication initiated by an applicant’s mentor has an impact on interview offers. No PD agreed that declarations of intent from applicants have an impact on their rank lists, while only 33.3% of PDs believed that a mentor communicating this for an applicant has some impact. Our statistical findings are in agreement with these perceptions as neither applicant-initiated pre-interview ( P = .54), mentor-initiated pre-interview ( P = .62), applicant-initiated post-interview ( P = .11) nor mentor-initiated post-interview ( P = .78) communications influenced the number of interviews received or ultimate match outcome. Conclusion: Pre- and post-interview communication practices vary widely among otolaryngology applicants. Applicant-initiated communication has no impact on outcomes, while mentor-initiated communication is perceived to have more benefit, despite not impacting interview or match outcomes in this study.
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.