RESUMO
Introduction: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck is a great burden globally, which is being tackled through treatment options of surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these, to avoid disease-related mortality. Multidisciplinary tumour boards play a pivotal role in customising and deciding management plan based on clinical aspects. The objective of the study is to determine the concordance of opinion between the treatment plan of a primary physician and board members. Material and methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study that includes 137 head and neck carcinoma cases. They were discussed in the multidisciplinary tumour board meeting and were reviewed; all demographics were analysed including the tumour staging and the decisions of the primary physician was compared with those of the board. To check the concordance between primary surgeon plans or after board discussion Kappa agreement test was used. Results: Total of 137 patients were included in the study out of which 63 cases were pre-treatment and 74 cases were post-treatment, i.e., surgically treated cases, with the distribution being 46% and 54%, respectively. Most cases, totaling 120, were SCC, accounting for 80% of the total cases. Among the pre-treatment cases, T4a and N0 were the most common categories, with 29 and 40 cases, respectively. Similarly, in post-treatment cases, the majority fell into the T4a and N1 categories, with 29 and 38 cases, respectively. When comparing the primary surgeon's plan with the tumour board meeting decision, the agreement showed a value of 0.273, indicating a slight level of agreement between the two entities. Conclusion: Our data indicates that the multidisciplinary head and neck tumour board may have influenced the treatment plans of the primary surgeon, in approximately one in two patients (43.06%).
RESUMO
Introduction Same-day, outpatient Sistrunk procedure is commonly performed to manage thyroglossal duct cyst anomalies and may lead to postoperative complications. Surgical drains are placed to prevent complications, but recent observations show no advantage and rather increased health care costs and patient discomfort. Objective The study evaluated if drain placement in the Sistrunk procedure offers any benefit on postoperative complications. Methods A retrospective analysis of patient records having undergone same-day, outpatient Sistrunk procedure from 2004 to 2014 was done. Of 58 (38 male and 20 female) patients included, 38 did not have drains placed and the remaining 20 had drains placed. Mean and median age of patients was 18.1 and 13.5 years, respectively. Postoperative complications of patients with drains versus those without drains were statistically analyzed. Results Overall, about 10% of patients had hematoma/seroma (H-S), with 6.9% of patients needing aspiration for H-S; 3.4% had wound infections; and 1.7% had pus formation. No statistically significant differences in Sistrunk-related complications between patient groups (with drain or without drain) were seen using Fisher exact (two-sided) test: H-S (p = 0.08); need for aspiration (p = 0.29); wound infection (p > 0.05); and pus formation (p = 0.35). Chi-square test also did not show any significant difference in the groups in terms of number of follow-ups. Conclusion Surgical placement of a drain in the Sistrunk procedure does not seem to offer any advantage in terms of reducing common postoperative complications. Sameday Sistrunk procedure without any drain placement may be a safer alternative without necessitating hospitalization. More studies with larger sample size are needed for further substantiation.(AU)