Sistrunk vs modified Sistrunk procedures: Does procedure type matter?

BACKGROUND: Thyroglossal Duct Cyst (TDC) is the most common congenital neck mass in children and is surgically managed with a Sistrunk procedure. Some surgeons perform a modified Sistrunk (mSis), involving the dissection of the fistula beyond the hyoid bone without coring out the foramen cecum at the base of the tongue. We aim to evaluate surgical outcomes of children undergoing Sistrunk (Sis) or modified Sistrunk (mSis) procedures for TDC at an academic pediatric institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of the Children's National Medical Center database from 2004 to 2014. Basic demographic information, preoperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and recurrence were extracted for children diagnosed with TDC. We estimated descriptive statistics using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Pearson's chi-square for continuous and categorical values. RESULTS: 157 patients that underwent TDC excision were identified. Sistrunk (Sis) was performed in 52 cases (33%) and modified Sistrunk (mSis) performed in 105 (67%) cases. 84 (54%) were female and the mean age at surgery was 5.4 years (SD=4.5). Overall recurrence was detected in 8 cases (5.1%) and did not differ significantly by procedure type [2 (4%) in Sis and 6 (6%) in mSis, p = 0.616]. Post-operative complications did not differ significantly between Sis and mSis procedure: swelling [6 (12%) and 18 (17%), p = 0.481]; seroma [5 (10%) and 10 (10%), p = 1.00]; surgical site infection [3 (6%) and 8 (8%), p = 0.752]; or post-excision incision and drainage [3 (6%) and 9 (9%), p = 0.752] (respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal no statistical difference in recurrence rates between Sis and mSis with no risk factors for recurrence identified. Furthermore, there was no difference in post-operative complications between the groups. Both surgical procedures were associated with few complications and low recurrence.

Can a Small Intestine Segment Be an Alternative Biological Conduit for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration?

BACKGROUND: Autologous nerve grafts are used to bridge peripheral nerve defects. Limited sources and donor site morbidity are the major problems with peripheral nerve grafts. Although various types of autologous grafts such as arteries, veins and muscles have been recommended, an ideal conduit has not yet been described. AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of a small intestinal conduit for peripheral nerve defects. STUDY DESIGN: Animal experimentation. METHODS: Twenty-one rats were divided into three groups (n=7). Following anaesthesia, sciatic nerve exploration was performed in the Sham group. The 10 mm nerve gap was bridged with a 15 mm ileal segment in the small intestinal conduit group and the defect was replaced with orthotopic nerve in autologous nerve graft group. The functional recovery was tested monthly by walking-track analysis and the sciatic functional index. Histological evaluation was performed on the 12th week. RESULTS: Sciatic functional index tests are better in autologous nerve graft group (-55.09±6.35); however, during follow-up, progress in sciatic functional index was demonstrated, along with axonal regeneration and innervation of target muscles in the small intestinal conduit group (-76.36±12.08) (p<0.05). In histologic sections, distinctive sciatic nerve regeneration was examined in the small intestinal conduit group. The expression of S-100 and neurofilament was observed in small intestinal conduit group but was less organised than in the autologous nerve graft group. Although the counted number (7459.79±1833.50 vs. 4226.51±1063.06 mm2), measured diameter [2.19 (2.15-2.88) vs. 1.74 (1.50-2.09) µm] and myelin sheath thickness [1.18 (1.09-1.44) vs. 0.66 (0.40-1.07) µm] of axons is significantly high in the middle sections of autologous nerve graft compared to the small intestinal conduit group, respectively (p<0.05), the peripheral nerve regeneration was also observed in the small intestinal conduit group. CONCLUSION: Small intestinal conduit should not be considered as an alternative to autologous nerve grafts in its current form; however, the results are promising. Even though the results are no better than autologous nerve grafts, with additional procedures, it might be a good alternative due to harvesting abundant sources without donor site morbidity.