RESUMEN
The authors reported a case of a 27-year-old man with a nontender left neck mass that had grown quite rapidly within few weeks. FNAB and CT were not consistent to establish the definite diagnosis. After excisional biopsy, the histopathological examination and the immunohistochemical study of the specimen revealed a cervical metastasis of seminoma. The patient was treated with chemotherapy with a complete clinical remission. This uncommon case-report can represent a great diagnostic and therapeutic challenge and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of every cervical masses occurring in young males patients. Diagnostic delays are unfortunately common and may lead to metastatic spread and worse prognosis.
Asunto(s)
Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Seminoma/secundario , Neoplasias Testiculares/patología , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos/diagnóstico por imagen , Metástasis Linfática , Masculino , Cuello , Metástasis de la Neoplasia , Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Seminoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Seminoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Testiculares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Testiculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , UltrasonografíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to compare operative factors, postoperative outcomes, and surgical complications of neck dissection (ND) when using the harmonic scalpel (HS) versus conventional haemostasis (CH) (classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients who underwent ND with primary head and neck cancer (HNSCC) resection were enrolled in this study and were randomized into two homogeneous groups: CH (conventional haemostasis with classic technique of tying and knots, resorbable ligature, and bipolar diathermy) and HS (haemostasis with harmonic scalpel). Outcomes of the study included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The use of the HS reduced significantly the operating time, the intraoperative blood loss, the postoperative pain, and the volume of drainage. No significant difference was observed in mean hospital stay and perioperative, and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The HS is a reliable and safe tool for reducing intraoperative blood loss, operative time, volume of drainage and postoperative pain in patients undergoing ND for HNSCC. Multicenter randomized studies need to be done to confirm the advantages of this technique and to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio.
