Montgomery Salivary Bypass Tube vs Self-Expandable Metal Stents for the treatment of esophageal strictures after total laryngectomy: a crossover study.

Objectives: Dysphagia affects 16% of patients undergoing total laryngectomy; of these, a third is due to pharyngoesophageal stenosis. Currently, the treatment is cyclic dilation of the stricture and Montgomery Salivary Bypass Tube (MSBT) application. The aim of this study is to assess whether using Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) may give better results after a non-durable response to repeated dilatation and application of MSBT. Materials and Methods: We verified whether using SEMS after at least 3 cyclic dilations and application of MSBT results in a longer dysphagia-free time in laryngectomized patients with pharyngolesopha-geal stenosis. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the procedures, radiation exposure and complications. Results: We enrolled 6 patients with a median age of 65 years (QR 62.5 - 75.75), of which 50% had undergone radiotherapy. Friedman's test for the duration of the dysphagia-free period did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (Friedman chi-squared = 2.6667, df = 1, p-value = 0.1025). The time required to implant the MSBT was significantly less than that required to implant the SEMS (Friedman chi-squared = 6, df = 1, p-value = 0.01431). Radiation exposure was absent for MSBT, while SEMS implant required an exposure to X-rays during the procedure and after 48 hours for placement verification. Two patients experienced short-term complications after SEMS implantation and one after two weeks from MSBT implantation; none of them had any health consequences. Conclusion: In patients who are already undergoing cyclic dilations and application of MSBT, switching to SEMS is not beneficial. Furthermore, MSBT has a significantly shorter implant procedure, does not expose the patient to X-rays, and, in the absence of complications, has a longer duration before removal.

Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on head and neck oncology activity: the experience of our University Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected otolaryngology and head and neck activities, also involving diagnosis and treatment of patients with oncology diseases with consequent delays and tumor upstaging. The aim of this study was to describe the experience of our otolaryngology unit during the pandemic on patients with cancer of the head and neck, comparing data on anatomical site of origin and preferred treatment with pre-pandemic data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of patients treated for oncology disorders of the head and neck in the Otolaryngology Unit of the Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, between March 10, 2020, and March 9, 2021. Data were compared with the same period of the previous year (March 10, 2019 - March 9, 2020). RESULTS: During the pandemic, we treated 92 patients with malignant tumor of the head and neck, compared to 101 patients treated during the same period of 2019 (-8.91%). The most common anatomical sites of origin of the neoplasms were larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx. Surgical approach was preferred in 57 patients (61.95%); non-surgical treatments were performed in 35 cases (38.05%). Compared to the same period of the previous year, we found a 12.90% decrease in the number of oncology patients undergoing surgery, while patients treated exclusively with non-surgical approaches increased by 18.42%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of COVID-19 on the activity of our otolaryngology unit and on the whole healthcare system, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients affected by malignancy of head and neck region were only minimally impacted.