Otosclerosis surgery under local anesthesia with sedation: Assessment of quality of life and stress.

OBJECTIVES: The main study endpoint was tolerance of stapedotomy under local anesthesia with sedation and under general anesthesia using stress and quality of life assessment questionnaires. Secondary endpoints comprised operative time and functional results. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In a consecutive series of stapedotomy patients operated on over a 12-month period, quality of life and perioperative stress were analysed by 3 questionnaires: the Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Cohen's perceived stress scale and the Post-traumatic stress disorder checklist scale. Questionnaire responses and audiometric data were compared between groups treated under local anesthesia with sedation and under general anesthesia. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included in the local anesthesia with sedation group and 6 in the general anesthesia group. There was no difference between the groups for quality of life, onset of post-traumatic stress, or perceived pre- and postoperative stress. There was also no difference in operative time. The audiometric data confirmed the reliability of stapedotomy. Stapedotomy under local anesthesia with sedation improved air conduction with≤10dB air-bone gap (ABG), comparable to results under general anesthesia. The rate of ABG≤10dB was 71.4%; no labyrinthisation was observed. CONCLUSION: Under local anesthesia with sedation, stapedotomy was well tolerated without increasing the stress associated with otosclerosis surgery. By correcting hearing loss, the procedure improves quality of life.

Otosclerosis surgery: Assessment of patient comfort.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate operative comfort and stress in patients undergoing stapedotomy for otosclerosis under local versus general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive otosclerosis patients managed over a 9-month period responded to 3 validated questionnaires to assess peri- and post-operative comfort: Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale. These results and audiometric data were compared between local and general anesthesia groups. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included in the local anesthesia group and 7 in the general anesthesia group, after exclusion of patients with history of otosclerosis surgery. There was no significant inter-group difference on Glasgow Benefit Inventory (P=0.38) or Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale (P=0.86). Perceived Stress Scale scores were higher in the general anesthesia group (P=0.038). In total, 67% of patients reported no discomfort under local anesthesia, and 86% were ready to undergo the procedure under local anesthesia again. There were no significant differences in postoperative symptoms, or in air-bone gap≤10dB (local anesthesia 81%, general anesthesia 71%; P=0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia in otosclerosis surgery did not increase stress or postoperative symptoms compared to general anesthesia. Audiometric results were not affected by type of anesthesia.

Management of somatic pain induced by head-and-neck cancer treatment: definition and assessment. Guidelines of the French Oto-Rhino-Laryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Society (SFORL).

OBJECTIVES: The authors present the guidelines of the French Oto-Rhino-Laryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Society (Société Française d'Oto-rhino-Laryngologie et de Chirurgie de la Face et du Cou [SFORL]) for the management of somatic pain induced by head-and-neck cancer treatment, and in particular the instruments needed for the definition and initial assessment of the various types of pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary work group was entrusted with a review of the scientific literature on the above topic. Guidelines were drawn up, based on the articles retrieved and the group members' individual experience. They were then read over by an editorial group independent of the work group. The final version was established in a coordination meeting. The guidelines were graded as A, B, C or expert opinion, by decreasing level of evidence. RESULTS: The priority is to eliminate tumoral recurrence when pain reappears or changes following head-and-neck cancer treatment. Neuropathic pain screening instruments and pain assessment scales should be used to assess pain intensity and treatment efficacy. Functional rehabilitation sessions should be prescribed to reduce musculoskeletal pain and prevent ankylosis and postural disorder. Psychotherapy and mind-body therapy, when available, should be provided in case of chronic pain. In case of recalcitrant complex pain, referral should be made to a multidisciplinary pain structure. CONCLUSION: The management of somatic pain induced by head-and-neck cancer treatment above all requires identifying and assessing the intensity of the various types of pain involved, their functional impact and their emotional component.