Time to Functional Recovery After Laser Tonsillotomy Performed Under Local Anesthesia vs Conventional Tonsillectomy With General Anesthesia Among Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Carbon dioxide laser tonsillotomy performed under local anesthesia may be an effective and less invasive alternative than dissection tonsillectomy for treatment of tonsil-related afflictions. Objective: To compare functional recovery and symptom relief among adults undergoing tonsillectomy or tonsillotomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 5 secondary and tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2018 to December 2019. Participants were 199 adult patients with an indication for surgical tonsil removal randomly assigned to either the tonsillectomy or tonsillotomy group. Interventions: For tonsillotomy, the crypts of the palatine tonsil were evaporated using a carbon dioxide laser under local anesthesia, whereas tonsillectomy consisted of total tonsil removal performed under general anesthesia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to functional recovery measured within 2 weeks after surgery assessed for a modified intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were time to return to work after surgery, resolution of primary symptoms, severity of remaining symptoms, surgical complications, postoperative pain and analgesics use, and overall patient satisfaction assessed for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Of 199 patients (139 [70%] female; mean [SD] age, 29 [9] years), 98 were randomly assigned to tonsillotomy and 101 were randomly assigned to tonsillectomy. Recovery within 2 weeks after surgery was significantly shorter after tonsillotomy than after tonsillectomy (hazard ratio for recovery after tonsillectomy vs tonsillotomy, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5). Two weeks after surgery, 72 (77%) patients in the tonsillotomy group were fully recovered compared with 26 (57%) patients in the tonsillectomy group. Time until return to work within 2 weeks was also shorter after tonsillotomy (median [IQR], 4.5 [3.0-7.0] days vs 12.0 [9.0-14.0] days; hazard ratio for return after tonsillectomy vs tonsillotomy, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4.). Postoperative hemorrhage occurred in 2 patients (2%) in the tonsillotomy group and 8 patients (12%) in the tonsillectomy group. At 6 months after surgery, fewer patients in the tonsillectomy group (25; 35%) than in the tonsillotomy group (54; 57%) experienced persistent symptoms (difference of 22%; 95% CI, 7%-37%). Most patients with persistent symptoms in both the tonsillotomy (32 of 54; 59%) and tonsillectomy (16 of 25; 64%) groups reported mild symptoms 6 months after surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with tonsillectomy performed under general anesthesia, laser tonsillotomy performed under local anesthesia had a significantly shorter and less painful recovery period. A higher percentage of patients had persistent symptoms after tonsillotomy, although the intensity of these symptoms was lower than before surgery. These results suggest that laser tonsillotomy performed under local anesthesia may be a feasible alternative to conventional tonsillectomy in this population. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NL6866 (NTR7044).

Variation in Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care: Impact of Patient and Hospital Characteristics.

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients' perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%-98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%-100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement.

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. METHODS: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: "Why," "On what aspects" and "How" do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? RESULTS: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.