Popescu Technique Revisited: Review of the Literature and Case Series.

Management of vascular malformations depends on the size, type, age of the patient, location, dissemination, and depth of penetration. Treatment options include propranolol, which reduces endothelial vessel proliferation, minimally invasive sclerotherapy to induce fibrosis, or surgery. In 1985, Valerian Popescu described a new approach to treatment consisting of intratumoral ligation by compartmentalization. This technique allows for high doses of the sclerosant agent to be delivered as systemic dissemination is restricted by a series of strangulating suture loops that divide the mass into segments. We describe the management and outcome of 2 patients who presented with vascular malformations in the orofacial region and were managed using a Popescu suturing technique. Vascular obliteration was achieved by a series of strangulating suture loops placed percutaneously throughout each lesion using a curved needle with a resorbable material (Vicryl; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). The aim was to segment the vascular malformation into manageable sections for subsequent injection of a sclerosant. The compartmentalization also ensured that the sclerosant stayed within these compartments and was not washed out into the general circulation. Good esthetic outcomes were achieved in very visible areas such as the commissure and the vermillion border. In these areas, a surgical resection would have certainly caused a disruption of the esthetics of the lips and, in the second case, probably an alteration of function. Intratumoral ligation can be used safely to achieve control of vascular malformations with good esthetic outcomes.

A comparative study of platelet-rich plasma, hydroxyapatite, demineralized bone matrix and autologous bone to promote bone regeneration after mandibular impacted third molar extraction.

OBJECTIVES: 1) to compare mandibular bone regeneration by applying autologous bone, platelet-rich plasma and two biomaterials (synthetic calcium hydroxyapatite, and demineralized bone matrix), and thus establish the potential benefits of these biomaterials in the regeneration of postextraction alveolar bone, 2) to identify which of them accelerates more bone regeneration and 3) to determine whether there are differences in the postoperative period (pain, swelling, trismus, infection) depending on the material used. STUDY DESIGN: It consists in a prospective, controlled (with a split- mouth design) and double blinded study. We use as a model an easily reproducible non-critical bone defect: the defect that remains after extraction of mandibular impacted third molar. The study design is based on the extraction of two mandibular impacted third molars in a patient during the same surgical procedure by the same surgeon. We assessed postoperative clinical data, and short, medium and long term neoformation of alveolar bone after extraction. We compared the two sockets (right and left), which had been grafted in a different way with the various elements mentioned above. In addition, we compared the postoperative inflammatory symptoms between groups. RESULTS: The highest acceleration in bone formation was observed in groups in which we used autologous bone and demineralized bone matrix. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding pain, swelling, trismus and infection throughout the postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of our study, autologous bone persists as the gold standard material for bone regeneration. Among the assessed biomaterials, demineralized bone matrix has yielded the best results obtained. No significant differences in the postoperative (pain, swelling, trismus and infectious events) were observed, depending on the type of material used as a graft.

Overall time interval ("Total diagnostic delay") and mortality in symptomatic oral cancer: A U-shaped association.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on survival of the total time interval since the first bodily change (sign/symptom) until the start of treatment in symptomatic oral cancer patients. METHODS: Retrospective, hospital-based study designed within the "Aarhus Statement" conceptual framework, using the overall interval to treatment of 183 oral cancer patients to analyse their survival rates. RESULTS: Overall time interval (T5): 107.1 ± 85.2 days. Overall survival rate: 58.4 (CI: 51.3-66.4%). Recurrence time (median): 724 days (IQR, 223-2963.5). Median survival time: 1744 days (IQR, 479.5-3438). Overall delay (T5) and mortality showed a U-shaped association, where patients with short (24.0-55.5 days) and long T5 intervals (127.5-420 days) had higher mortality than those with medium T5 intervals (55.5-127.5 days). CONCLUSION: There is a non-monotonic association between time interval and mortality. Higher mortality rates are linked to shorter and longer time intervals. This may induce underestimation of the association when time intervals are considered dichotomously.

Association between hospital interval and survival in patients with oral cancer: A waiting time paradox.

BACKGROUND: In early diagnosis studies on symptomatic cancer, survival was the most recommended outcome. The magnitude and impact of the patient interval and primary care interval is well-known in oral cancer; however, the hospital interval and its influence on surviving this neoplasia are not well known. AIMS: To quantify the interval between the first contact with the specialist and the start of treatment for patients with oral cancer and to evaluate whether there was a link between this interval and disease survival. METHODS: We designed a hospital-based study that included 228 patients diagnosed with oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1998 and 2008 at A Coruña University Hospital (Spain) who were followed up until 2016. The data were extracted retrospectively from hospital medical charts. The study interval was defined in the context of the "pathways to treatment" model as the interval from the first specialist visit (start point) to the start of treatment (end point). We calculated the total interval (from first symptom to treatment) to evaluate the relative length of the hospital interval, and we considered the variables age, sex, location, comorbidity and tumour classification stage. Survival time was defined as the interval from the first treatment to death or censoring. RESULTS: The median hospital interval was 20 days, with an interquartile range of 15-29.1 days. The most relevant prognostic variable was the tumour stage (III-IV: Exp. ß = 2.8, p = 0.001). The hospital interval was part of the multivariate model, and its association with mortality showed a V-shaped association, where patients with short hospital intervals (3-18 days) and those with long hospital intervals (26-55 days) had significantly higher mortality than those with medium hospital intervals (19-25 days). CONCLUSION: The hospital interval represents a relevant interval for the patient's path towards treatment, has prognostic implications and is subject to a severity bias (waiting time paradox) that should be avoided.