Utility of Applying Pressure Dressing Following Parotidectomy Compared to Conventional Dressing: A Benefit or Not?

BACKGROUND: Post-parotidectomy wound dressing techniques lack of robust evidence, creating variation in practice. The choice between conventional and pressure dressing is typically based on expert opinions and individual preferences and the anticipated benefits of reduced drainage and shorter drain retention in pressure dressing hasn't demonstrated yet. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the advantage of pressure dressing following parotidectomy compared to conventional dressing. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This study was an open-label randomized controlled trial recruiting the patients aged 18 and above undergoing parotidectomy at the Otolaryngology Department of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between March 2021 and September 2022. Our exclusion criteria were as following: (1) underwent parotidectomy combined with neck dissection, (2) prior irradiation to the parotid gland or head and neck region, (3) prior parotidectomy within the previous year, (4) consumption of anticholinergic medications, (5) bleeding disorders or coagulopathies. PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: The predictor variable was postoperative dressing, and subjects were randomly assigned to pressure or conventional dressing. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): The primary outcome variables were drain output (ml) measured every 8 hours and reported in the term of total drain output and duration of drain use. The secondary outcome variables were post-parotidectomy complications (if any), complications from the pressure dressing and pain scores. COVARIATES: The covariates were underlying disease, smoking, alcohol drinking, types of parotidectomy (extension of surgery), and pathologic result. ANALYSES: The appropriate univariate and bivariate statistics were computed, and the level of statistical significance was set at P value < .05. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled, with 20 in each group. Average age was 59.10 ± 10.60 years in the pressure dressing group and 55.70 ± 18.90 years in the conventional dressing group. Baseline characteristics were the same in both groups. The average volume of drain output in the pressure dressing group was 44.25 ± 25.20 ml, compared to 37.05 ± 22.74 ml in the conventional dressing group (P = .34). Moreover, the average duration of drain placement for the pressure dressing group was 27.65 ± 9.86 hours, while it was 26.90 ± 11.23 hours for the conventional group (P = .83). Notably, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sialocele and pain scores. Furthermore, no complications from the application of pressure dressing were observed. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Pressure dressing does not provide significant benefits over conventional dressing after parotidectomy concerning drain output, duration of drain placement, or surgical complications.

The short-term outcomes of surgical scars in head and neck surgery comparing between surgical blade and geometric electron modulation electrocautery.

BACKGROUND: Scar formation after neck surgery is a frequent concern, impacting patients both physically and psychologically. Cosmetic appearance plays a crucial role in assessing surgical success. At present, the evolving medical technologies introduces innovations like Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) electrocautery. GEM technology offers potential benefits such as reduced thermal injury and consistent heat emission during surgery compared to conventional electrocautery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the difference between postoperative neck scars from the surgical blade as the gold standard and geometric electron modulation electrocautery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled study was performed on the patients who were diagnosed with surgical conditions requiring neck surgery at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from 2023 to 2024. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was utilized to assess scar appearance at 1 and 3 months following the surgery, and the amount of blood loss during incision was recorded. RESULTS: 22 patients were enrolled to this study. At 1-month follow-up, we saw significant difference between GEM (20.32 ± 4.11) and the surgical blade (23.27 ± 4.59) (P = 0.008) from POSAS, patient scale but no significant difference in doctor scale, (GEM 21.55 ± 7.34, surgical blade 24.27 ± 7.88, P = 0.155). At 3-month follow-up, there were no significant difference between the groups both doctor (GEM 16.45 ± 4.62, surgical blade 17.65 ± 4.50, P = 0.411) and patient scale (GEM 13.15 ± 2.96, surgical blade 14.05 ± 3.33, P = 0.328). CONCLUSION: GEM electrocautery had a superior scar outcome to a surgical blade at 1 month from the patient perspective. There was also significantly less blood loss in GEM compared with the surgical blade.

The prognostic value of excision repair cross-complementing Group 1 expression in nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Overexpression of excision repair cross-complementing Group 1 (ERCC-1) is related to cisplatin resistance and defective repair of radiation damage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of excision (ERCC-1) expression in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with NPC between 2000 and 2013. The archived tissues were analyzed using immunohistochemistry to determine ERCC-1 expression. The ERCC-1 expression level along with other clinical factors and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval was calculated to assess the risk. RESULTS: The analysis of ERCC-1 expression was available in 262 NPC patients who had medical records at our hospital. Among those patients, 221 (84%) were treated with curative radiotherapy (RT)/concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 22 (7%) were treated with palliative RT alone, and 19 (9%) were given best supportive care. There was no correlation between ERCC-1 expression and stage of cancer or OS. No difference in 5-year OS was found between patients with low ERCC-1 expression and high ERCC-1 expression (38% vs. 36%; P = 0.981). The adjusted HR (aHR) of cancer death increased with cancer stage (aHR = 2.93 for advanced Stages III-IV; P = 0.001) and age (aHR = 2.11 for age >55; P ≤ 0.001). ERCC-1 expression exhibited no prognostic significance in our study (aHR = 1). CONCLUSION: In this study, ERCC-1 expression has no statistical significance to be considered a prognostic factor for OS among NPC patients. On the other hand, cancer stage, age, and types of treatment can be prognostic factors in NPC patients.

Pediatric parotidectomy outcomes: A 14-year multicenter study.

Objectives: Parotidectomy increases childhood challenges. This study aimed to determine the clinical profiles, investigations, and outcomes of pediatric patients who had undergone parotidectomy. Methods: A multicenter retrospective review of parotidectomy in pediatric patients between 2007 and 2020. Results: In 108 parotidectomies, the final diagnoses were benign (47.22%), malignant (36.11%), and non-neoplastic (16.67%). The incidence of facial palsy was 37.03%, which was significantly lower in the superficial group than that in the total parotidectomy group (p = .021). The incidence of facial nerve palsy was significantly higher in the malignancy group than that in the benign group (p = .035). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detected malignancy with 92.8% overall accuracy, 83.3% sensitivity, and 100% specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 54.2% and 92.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Parotidectomy is commonly performed for benign and non-neoplastic diseases in pediatric patients. Facial nerve palsy is significantly associated with malignant tumors and total parotidectomy. MRI is the most accurate imaging modality for diagnosing malignant lesions. FNA exhibits moderate agreement with the final pathology. Level of Evidence: Level IV.