Infection Control With Topical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Mucosal Head and Neck Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for differences in surgical site infection (SSI) rates and bacterial load after major mucosal head and neck surgery between patients who received topical antimicrobial prophylaxis and those who did not. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 20, 2021, with cross-referencing of retrieved studies per PRISMA guidelines. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria captured clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies with infectious outcomes of adults who underwent major mucosal head and neck surgery and received perioperative topical antimicrobial therapy to the oral cavity and/or pharynx. Studies of dental procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was SSI rate, and the secondary outcome was bacterial load. Two blinded investigators screened each text. RESULTS: Of 265 unique citations, 9 studies of 470 total patients were included. Topical treatments included numerous antibiotics and antiseptics directly applied over mucosa. Pooled SSI rates of 252 patients in the intervention cohort and 218 in the control cohort were 8% (95% CI, 3%-14%; I 2 = 61.2%) and 29% (95% CI, 16%-43%; I 2 = 79.5%), respectively. A meta-analysis of 7 comparative studies totaling 192 patients receiving topical therapy and 218 control patients revealed a pooled relative risk of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28-0.68; I 2 = 0.0%) in favor of the treatment group. The studies demonstrated a short-term decrease in bacterial counts after topical antimicrobial prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent prophylactic topical antimicrobial therapy had less than half the risk of developing SSI after mucosal head and neck surgery when compared with those who received no topical prophylaxis.

IgG4-Related Disease of the Skull and Skull Base-A Systematic Review and Report of Two Cases.

OBJECTIVE: IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is an inflammatory process that uncommonly can present in the skull base and calvarium and mimic a tumor but the nature of this condition is not well summarized in the neurosurgical literature. METHODS: A review was performed of 2 cases of IgG4-RD in the skull base highlighting the diagnostic challenges with assessment of these skull base lesions, and a systematic review of relevant literature was carried out. RESULTS: A systematic review of the literature conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines identified 113 articles, with 184 cases of IgG4-RD in the skull base or calvarium. The most commonly affected locations include the meninges, cavernous sinus, base of the posterior fossa, clivus, and mastoid bone. Headache, visual and auditory disturbances, cranial nerve dysfunction, and seizures were the most common presenting symptoms. Medical treatment was highly successful and most commonly consisted of corticosteroids coadministered with immunosuppressive agents such as rituximab. Prevalence seemed to be equal between sexes, and serum IgG4 levels were increased in 61% of patients. Delayed diagnosis and a need for multiple biopsies were reported in numerous cases. Two cases of skull base IgG4-RD from the authors' institution show the variable presentations of this disease. More invasive surgical biopsies were required in both cases, and corticosteroid treatment led to significant clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: IgG4-RD is an uncommon condition with an increasing body of reported cases that can affect the skull base and calvarium and should be in the differential diagnosis, because delay in diagnosis and treatment may be common.

Complications and Outcomes of Chimeric Free Flaps: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Ablations of locally advanced or recurrent head and neck cancer commonly result in large composite orofacial defects. Chimeric flaps represent a unique surgical option for these defects, as they provide diverse tissue types from a single donor site. The purpose of the study was to consolidate the literature on chimeric flaps with regard to postoperative complication rates to help inform surgical decision making. DATA SOURCES: The librarian created search strategies with a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary in Ovid Medline (1946), Embase (1947), Scopus (1823), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrails.gov (1997). REVIEW METHODS: Candidate articles were independently reviewed by 2 authors familiar with the subject material, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were uniformly applied for article selection. Articles were considered eligible if they included patients who received a single chimeric flap for reconstruction of head and neck defects and if they provided data on complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 521 chimeric flaps were included in the study. The major complication rate was 22.6%, while the minor complication rate was 14.0%. There were 7 flap deaths noted in the series. Median operative time and harvest time were 15.0 and 2.5 hours, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chimeric flaps represent a viable option for reconstruction of complex head and neck defects and have complication rates similar to those of double free flaps and single free flaps with locoregional flap while only modestly increasing total operative time.

Complications of double free flap and free flap combined with locoregional flap in head and neck reconstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this clinical review was to assess the feasibility of reconstructing complex head and neck defects with 2 or more free flaps simultaneously. METHODS: A total of 38 articles were reviewed. The patient population included those who received 2 or more free flaps or a single free flap plus a locoregional flap. The primary outcome assessed was rate of complications. RESULTS: Among double flaps, the minor complication rate was 6.96% and the major complication rate was 20.0%. In comparison, the free flap plus locoregional flap group had higher rates of minor and major complications of 30.4% and 29.5%, respectively. The median operating time was 660 minutes for double flaps and 602 minutes for free flap plus locoregional flap (P = .828). CONCLUSION: Compared to the single free flap plus locoregional flap, double free flaps are relatively reliable without increasing surgical complications or decreasing flap survival, while only modestly increasing operating times.