Electrophysiological Changes in Patients with Postoperative Cross-facial Nerve Graft in a Tertiary Care Center.

Background: Facial nerve palsy is a multifaceted pathology that causes facial disfigurement, affecting eye closure, speech articulation, oral competence, and emotional expression, with functional, aesthetic, and psychological consequences. Standardized electrophysiological tests, such as electroneurography and electromyography, allow an objective evaluation of the functional state of the nerve. Here, we aimed to compare and correlate clinical findings with electromyography in patients with facial nerve palsy, before and after facial nerve reanimation with cross-facial nerve grafts. Methods: Eight patients with traumatic or nontraumatic facial paralysis with complete clinical records who underwent surgical reanimation of facial nerve with cross nerve grafts. Results: The median time from diagnosis to treatment was 173 days (interquartile range = 222). Outcomes were evaluated using standard clinical scales (House-Brackmann, Sunnybrook, and eFACE) and electromyography. The median time for postoperative outcome evaluation was 768 days (interquartile range = 1053). A statistically significant difference was found between pre- and postoperative outcomes according to eFACE (Δ median = 13, P = 0.003), House-Brackmann (Δ median = -2, P = 0.008), and electromyography (Δ mean = 855, P = 0.005). A positive correlation between electromyography and clinical evaluation with eFACE was observed (r = 0.751, 95% confidence interval = 0.174-0.944, P = 0.019). Conclusions: Our results suggest that cross nerve grafts are associated with clinical and electromyographic improvement of the paralyzed face. Electromyography and eFACE scores validate the reliability of eFACE scale for measuring postoperative outcomes. We suggest postoperative electromyography as an objective measure of postoperative evaluation in patients with a delay in improvement at 6-9 months.

Inadequate prediction of postoperative complications in breast cancer surgery: An evaluation of the ACS Surgical Risk Calculator.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeon (ACS) Surgical Risk Calculator is an online tool that helps surgeons estimate the risk of postoperative complications for numerous surgical procedures across several surgical specialties. METHODS: We evaluated the predictive performance of the calculator in 385 cancer patients undergoing breast surgery. Calculator-predicted complication rates were compared with observed complication rates; calculator performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination analyses. RESULTS: The mean calculator-predicted rates for any complication (4.1%) and serious complication (3.2%) were significantly lower than the observed rates (11.2% and 5.2%, respectively). The area under the curve was 0.617 for any complication and 0.682 for serious complications. p Values for the Hosmer-Lemeshow test were significant (<.05) for both outcomes. Brier scores were 0.102 for any complication and 0.048 for serious complication. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS risk calculator is not an ideal tool for predicting individual risk of complications following breast surgery in a Mexican cohort. The most valuable use of the calculator may reside in its role as an aid for patient-led surgery planning. The possibility of introducing breast surgery-specific data could improve the performance of the calculator. Furthermore, a disease-specific calculator could provide more accurate predictions and include complications more frequently found in breast cancer surgery.

Saliva is a reliable and accessible source for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of saliva sampling as a non-invasive and safer tool to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to compare its reproducibility and sensitivity with nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPS). The use of sample pools was also investigated. METHODS: A total of 2107 paired samples were collected from asymptomatic healthcare and office workers in Mexico City. Sixty of these samples were also analyzed in two other independent laboratories for concordance analysis. Sample processing and analysis of virus genetic material were performed according to standard protocols described elsewhere. A pooling analysis was performed by analyzing the saliva pool and the individual pool components. RESULTS: The concordance between NPS and saliva results was 95.2% (kappa 0.727, p = 0.0001) and 97.9% without considering inconclusive results (kappa 0.852, p = 0.0001). Saliva had a lower number of inconclusive results than NPS (0.9% vs 1.9%). Furthermore, saliva showed a significantly higher concentration of both total RNA and viral copies than NPS. Comparison of our results with those of the other two laboratories showed 100% and 97% concordance. Saliva samples are stable without the use of any preservative, and a positive SARS-CoV-2 sample can be detected 5, 10, and 15 days after collection when the sample is stored at 4 °C. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that saliva is as effective as NPS for the identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected asymptomatic patients. Sample pooling facilitates the analysis of a larger number of samples, with the benefit of cost reduction.