A Systematic Review of Oral Nutritional Supplement and Wound Healing.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the current literature for effects of oral nutritional supplement on wound healing rates in humans. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline and PubMed database following PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed database was searched using terms relating to oral nutritional supplement and wound healing from 1837 to March 2020. Study inclusion criteria were: (i) design: randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, observational studies, clinical trials; (ii) population: adults; and (iii) intervention: oral nutritional supplement. RESULTS: The search yielded 2433 studies, 313 of which were clinical trials or clinical studies. After abstract review, 28 studies qualified to be included in the review evaluating the following supplementation categories on wound healing: protein and amino acids (10), mineral, vitamin and antioxidants (9), probiotics (1), and mixed nutrients (8). Arginine and omega-3 supplement were shown to improve wound healing in head and neck cancer patients with surgical wounds by decreasing incidence of postoperative complications and reducing length of hospital stay. Mineral, vitamins, and antioxidants enriched supplements were more beneficial in increasing wound healing than non-enriched protein supplement for diabetic foot and pressure ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation of a variety of nutrients had variable effects on improving wound healing in different types of wounds. However, further research on the impact of nutritional supplements on surgical wound healing is necessary. The impact of multiple nutrient formulations may also need to be further evaluated for efficacy.

Noise in Endoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery Operating Rooms.

BACKGROUND: Noise in the operating room (OR) contributes to miscommunication among team members and may negatively impact patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify noise levels during endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery. The secondary aim was to understand how OR team members perceive noise during endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery. METHODS: Noise levels were measured using the validated phone application SoundMeter X 10.0.4 (r1865) (Faber Acoustical, Utah, USA) at the ear-level of the surgeon, scrub nurse, circulating nurse, and anesthesiologist. At the end of each surgery, OR team members were asked to complete a six-question questionnaire about noise during that surgery. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and two noise measurements were recorded across 353 trials. The loudest mean noise measurement was 84.51 dB and maximum noise measurement was 96.21 dB at the ear-level of the surgeon. Noise was significantly higher at the ear-level of the surgeon and scrub nurse in comparison to the circulating nurse (p = .000) and anesthesiologist (p = .000). Forty percent of questionnaire respondents believed noise was a problem and 38% stated that noise caused communication issues during surgery. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and scrub nurses have significantly higher noise exposure in comparison to circulating nurses and anesthesiologists during endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery. For these members of the OR team, noise is also identified as problematic and causing issues with communication. Mechanisms to reduce potential noise may be implemented to improve communication and patient outcomes in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery.