Combining Piezo and Power Tools for a Better Outcome in Hybrid Structural-Preservation Rhinoplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, rhinoplasty has seen an unprecedented evolution in concepts, techniques and tools. New concepts have led to new techniques, prevalently but not exclusively related to preservation rhinoplasty, and the use of new tools has made such techniques easier, more precise and thus better reproducible. Power tools can presently be considered only relatively new, while Piezo has gained great popularity over the last years. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This article is focused on how power tools (diverse burrs with specific spherical, cylindrical, conical, discoid tips) can be integrated efficiently together with the use of Piezo and its different inserts in a logical and effective manner. DISCUSSION: This combination should be implemented in a progressive fashion into specific steps of surgery, although, in general, burrs should be used for reshaping and piezo for cutting bone. Specific and notable exceptions to this rule will be mentioned in the paper. Obviously, cost should be considered, but the benefits are evident: heightened control, reduced asymmetries, smoother bony and middle vault contour, and a more precise management of septum and turbinates. We have come to this conclusion following the combined experience of the two centers participating in the study, with over 350 patients over the last three years. CONCLUSIONS: The article focuses on the modified dorsal split preservation hybrid rhinoplasty favored by the senior author, but its principles will easily apply to any structural, preservation, or hybrid rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Multidisciplinary Management of Descending Necrotizing Mediastinitis: Is Thoracoscopic Treatment Feasible?

Background: Descending necrotizing mediastinitis (DNM) is a life-threatening condition, generally caused by downward dissemination of oropharyngeal infections through cervical fascial planes. Mediastinal drainage is conventionally achieved by thoracotomy, but a Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) approach is gaining interest due to the reduced invasiveness of procedure. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VATS treatment in patients with DNM. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study including patients with descending mediastinitis that underwent mediastinal drainage through VATS (VATS group) or thoracotomy (thoracotomy group), both in association with cervical drainage. Patients with mediastinitis secondary to cardiac, pulmonary, or esophageal surgery were excluded. The intergroup differences regarding surgical outcome and postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared. Results: A total of 21 patients were treated for descending mediastinitis during the study period. Cervicotomy and thoracotomy were performed in 15 patients (71%), while cervicotomy and VATS were performed in 6 patients (29%). There were no significant differences in surgical outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality between groups. VATS treatment was not associated with a higher complication rate. Patients in the VATS group had a shorter operative time (p = 0.016) and shorter ICU stay (p = 0.026). Conclusions: VATS treatment of DNM is safe and effective. The comparison with thoracotomy showed no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality. The VATS approach is associated with a shorter operative time and ICU stay than thoracotomy.

Modified blade: an interventional option in rigid bronchoscopy for non-resectable benign tracheal stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Benign tracheobronchial stenosis is a abnormal tracheal lumen narrowing that may incur progressive dyspnea and life-threatening hypoxemia. There is no consensus on which patients should be treated with endoscopic or surgical method. This study investigates the outcomes of bronchoscopic dilatation in the treatment of benign tracheal stenosis using a device equipped with a blade to cut the stenotic lesions with dense fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The procedure was carried out in an operating room under general anesthesia. All patients were intubated with a Rigid Bronchoscope (RB) placed just above the stenosis. Through Rigid Bronchoscopy combined modalities were used as needed: radial incisions of the mucosal stenosis with blade at the levels of 4, 8 and 12 o'clock, with back and forth movements, then the stenotic area was dilated more easily with a rigid bronchoscope. Dilatation was performed by passing the RB of increasing diameter through stenotic areas and then Balloon dilatation of increasing diameter. There were no complications during the procedure. RESULT: We conducted an observational, retrospective, single-centre study in the Thoracic Surgery Unit of the University of 'Luigi Vanvitelli' of Naples from November 2011 to September 2021. We included all consecutive patients with benign tracheal stenosis inoperable. During the study period, 113 patients were referred to our department with benign tracheal stenosis inoperable. 61 patients were treated with the blade. During the follow-up, a recurrence of the stenosis was observed in 8 patients in the first month and in 4 patients in the third month. Instead in the patients treated with the use of laser (52 patients), during the follow-up a recurrence was observed in 16 patients in the first month and in 6 patients in the third month; no patient relapsed after 6 months and after 1 year. Long term successful bronchoscopic management with blade was attained by 99% in simple and 93% in mixed stenosis and in complex type stenosis. CONCLUSION: Our study underlines the importance of the use of the blade in bronchoscopic treatment as a valid conservative approach in the management of patients with inoperable benign tracheal stenosis as an alternative to the use of the laser, reducing the abnormal inflammatory reaction in order to limit recurrences.

Durvalumab Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Biliary Tract Cancer: a Real-World Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated for the first time the impact on survival of adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine compared with cisplatin/gemcitabine in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analyzed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine or with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. The impact of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was investigated with univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 563 patients were included in the analysis: 213 received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, 350 received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. At the univariate analysis, the addition of durvalumab was found to have an impact on survival, with a median OS of 14.8 months versus 11.2 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, p = 0.0002] in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab compared to those who received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. At the univariate analysis for PFS, the addition of durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated a survival impact, with a median PFS of 8.3 months and 6.0 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70, p < 0.0001) in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab and cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, respectively. The multivariate analysis confirmed that adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS, with patients > 70 years old and those affected by locally advanced disease experiencing the highest survival benefit. Finally, an exploratory analysis of prognostic factors was performed in the cohort of patients who received durvalumab: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and disease stage were to be independent prognostic factors in terms of OS. The interaction test highlighted NLR ≤ 3, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) = 0, and locally advanced disease as positive predictive factors for OS on cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. CONCLUSION: In line with the results of the TOPAZ-1 trial, adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine has been confirmed to confer a survival benefit in terms of OS and PFS in a real-world setting of patients with advanced BTC.