Objective This study sought to validate alternative pain management strategies that can reduce reliance on opioids for postoperative pain management in otology. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Single tertiary‐care facility. Methods Adult patients who underwent outpatient otologic surgery from September 2021 to July 2022 were randomized into treatment cohorts. The opioid monotherapy cohort received a standard opioid prescription. The multimodal analgesia cohort received the same opioid prescription, prescriptions for acetaminophen and naproxen, and additional pain management education with a flyer on discharge. All patients completed a questionnaire 1 week after surgery to evaluate opioid usage and pain scores. Results Eighty‐six patients completed the study. The opioid monotherapy cohort (n = 42) and multimodal analgesia cohort (n = 44) were prescribed an average of 42.1 ± 20.4 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and 38.4 ± 5.7 MME, respectively (p = 0.373). Four patients (9.52%) in the opioid monotherapy cohort required opioid refills compared to 1 patient (2.27%) in the multimodal analgesia cohort (p = 0.156). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the multimodal analgesia cohort consumed significantly fewer opioids on average than the opioid monotherapy cohort (11.9 ± 15.9 MME vs 22.8 ± 28.0 MME, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative rehospitalizations (p = 0.317) or Emergency Department visits (p = 0.150). Pain scores on the day of surgery, postoperative day (POD) 1, POD3, and POD7 were not significantly different between cohorts (p = 0.395, 0.896, 0.844, 0.765, respectively). Conclusion The addition of patient education, acetaminophen, and naproxen to postoperative opioid prescriptions significantly reduced opioid consumption without affecting pain scores, refill rates, or complication rates after otologic surgery.
ImportanceDue to lack of data from high-powered randomized clinical trials, the differences in functional and survival outcomes for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) undergoing primary transoral robotic surgery (TORS) vs primary radiation therapy and/or chemoradiation therapy (RT/CRT) are unclear.ObjectivesTo compare 5-year functional (dysphagia, tracheostomy dependence, and gastrostomy tube dependence) and survivorship outcomes in patients with T1-T2 OPSCC receiving primary TORS vs RT/CRT.Design, Setting, and PopulationThis national multicenter cohort study used data from a global health network (TriNetX) to identify differences in functional and survival outcomes among patients with OPSCC who underwent primary TORS or RT/CRT in 2002 to 2022. After propensity matching, 726 patients with OPSCC met inclusion criteria. In the TORS group, 363 (50%) patients had undergone primary surgery, and in the RT/CRT group, 363 (50%) patients had received primary RT/CRT. Data analyses were performed from December 2022 to January 2023 using the TriNetX platform.ExposurePrimary surgery with TORS or primary treatment with radiation therapy and/or chemoradiation therapy.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPropensity score matching was used to balance the 2 groups. Functional outcomes were measured at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and more than 5 years posttreatment and included dysphagia, gastrostomy tube dependence, and tracheostomy dependence according to standard medical codes. Five-year overall survivorship was compared between patients undergoing primary TORS vs RT/CRT.ResultsPropensity score matching allowed a study sample with 2 cohorts comprising statistically similar parameters with 363 (50%) patients in each. Patients in the TORS cohort had a mean (SD) age of 68.5 (9.9) vs 68.8 (9.7) years in RT/CRT cohort; 86% and 88% were White individuals, respectively; 79% of patients were men in both cohorts. Primary TORS was associated with clinically meaningful increased risk of dysphagia at 6 months (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84) and 1 year posttreatment (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.22-2.39) compared with primary RT/CRT. Patients receiving surgery were less likely to be gastrostomy tube dependent at 6 months (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.00) and 5 years posttreatment (risk difference, −0.05; 95% CI, −0.07 to −0.02). Differences in overall rates of tracheostomy dependence (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51-1.82) between groups were not clinically meaningful. Patients with OPSCC, unmatched for cancer stage or human papillomavirus status, who received RT/CRT had worse 5-year overall survival than those who underwent primary surgery (70.2% vs 58.4%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis national multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing primary TORS vs primary RT/CRT for T1-T2 OPSCC found that primary TORS was associated with a clinically meaningful increased risk of short-term dysphagia. Patients treated with primary RT/CRT had an increased risk of short- and long-term gastrostomy tube dependence and worse 5-year overall survival than those who underwent surgery.
Introduction: Head and neck surgeons at high risk for strain and subsequent complications related to poor posture. We aim to evaluate current ergonomic practices among otolaryngology head and neck surgeons and report cervicothoracic spine posture data from the operating room (OR). Methods: A validated questionnaire evaluating current ergonomic practices was given to participants. A wearable posture device, was calibrated and worn around the neck with the sensor positioned at the mid-scapular region of the upper back. After a full day in the OR, percentage of upright time for the day was recorded. Results: 8 head and neck surgeons, 12 residents, and 4 fellows in training participated in our survey of current ergonomic practices. Over a 2-month period, posture data from the OR was acquired from 5 attendings, 3 fellows and 5 residents on the head and neck service. Changing body position, ignoring discomfort, and specialized footwear were most used to relieve musculoskeletal discomfort while operating. 83.3% of surgeons reported not receiving any formal ergonomics training and were unaware of related guidelines. After morning preparation, posture significantly declined during intraoperative time (p <0.001). There were no significant posture differences by level of training (p= 0.19), or hours spent in the OR (p=0.92). Conclusion: Surgical ergonomics is rarely considered as a point of intervention, but its lack thereof can have serious consequences leading to injury and unresolved day-to-day discomfort. There is a role for ergonomics in case planning, as it has potential to vastly improve surgeon quality of life and career longevity.
Purpose: Primary vitreoretinal lymphoma is the most common intraocular lymphoproliferative disorder. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of pars plana vitrectomy, specifically using modern high cut rate dual-cycle cutters, on in vitro cell viability and diagnostic yield.Methods: Human Burkitt lymphoma cell line Namalwa at 2 x 10^5 cells/mL was aspirated by 25-gauge dual-blade guillotine-type vitrectomy at five speeds (500, 1,000, 4,000, 7,500, or 15,000 cuts per minute). Cell viability and diagnostic yield in each subtype group were determined using hemocytometry, viable cell count using Cell Counting Kit-8, and pathologist-guided manual count.Results: No significant deviation in cell count was identified in any cut rate by ANOVA (P = 0.61), and no trends in the number of viable cells were identified across cut rates (R 2 = 0.188, P = 0.47). Among histologic cell counts per cut-rate, neither linear regression (R = 0.531, P = 0.16) nor ANOVA (P = 0.096) were statistically significant.Conclusion: There was no significant degradation in the number of viable cells with increasing cut speed. These results suggest that in contrast to previous findings using 20g or 23g vitrectomy for diagnostic vitrectomy, modern vitrectomy systems may be used at up to 15,000 cpm without compromising the viability of lymphoma cells.
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.