Outpatient secondary care pathways for head and neck cancer referral result in patient delays for cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of head and neck cancer referrals are received through primary care. A proportion of cancer referrals are received through secondary care specialties. Local delivery plan (LDP) targets in Scotland for cancer investigation are set at 31 days for diagnosis and 62 days to start treatment. The aim was to audit referrals made through non-primary care pathways compared with the standard primary care pathways against LDP targets. METHODS: New head and neck cancer patients between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2019 were included. Pathway points were recorded between referral to outpatient clinic, time to multidisciplinary team discussion (MDT) and finally MDT to treatment. RESULTS: 1,276 new patient referrals were received over a 5-year period. Of these, 136 (10%) were referred via non-primary care pathways. The mean time for urgent suspicion of cancer (USoC) referrals to start treatment was 77 days (15 days over target) and for outpatient secondary care referrals was 102 days (40 days over target) (p<0.05). When treatment intent was considered, 841/1,131 (75%) of patients referred via primary care were treated curatively compared with 49/99 (49%) (p<0.05) of patients referred through the secondary outpatient pathway. CONCLUSION: Patients with head and neck cancer referred from other outpatient specialties face delays commencing cancer treatment and are also associated with a greater likelihood of being treated with palliative intent.

How we do it: impacted oesophageal foreign body removal using a dilatation balloon.

BACKGROUND: Ingested foreign bodies are a common presentation to paediatric ENT services. Depending on the site, these are usually managed with flexible or rigid oesophagoscopy and retrieval. This paper presents a novel technique for removing a hollow foreign body that could not be removed using conventional means. METHOD AND RESULTS: After rigid and flexible approaches failed, a guidewire was passed through the foreign body under fluoroscopic guidance and a dilatation balloon passed through the lumen of the object. Inflating the balloon allowed dilatation of the inflamed mucosa above and below the object, facilitating straightforward removal under traction. CONCLUSION: This is a novel and reproducible technique that uses equipment readily available in tertiary referral centres. Employed in this context, the technique enabled removal of an impacted object surrounded by granulation tissue, and would be appropriate for other objects with a lumen.

Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tracheoesophageal puncture represents the 'gold standard' for voice restoration following laryngectomy. Tracheoesophageal puncture can be undertaken primarily during laryngectomy or in a separate secondary procedure. There is no current consensus on which approach is superior. The current evidence comparing primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture was assessed. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing outcomes for primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture after laryngectomy were conducted. Outcome measures were: voice success, overall complication rate and pharyngocutaneous fistula rate. RESULTS: Eleven case series met the inclusion criteria, two prospective and nine retrospective. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in overall complication rate or voice outcomes, though it suggested a significantly increased risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula in primary compared to secondary tracheoesophageal puncture. CONCLUSION: Primary tracheoesophageal puncture is a safe and efficient approach for voice rehabilitation. However, secondary tracheoesophageal puncture should be preferred where there is a higher risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula.

Comparison of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) with other bariatric procedures; a systematic review of the randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery can provide efficient weight loss and improvement in obesity-related co-morbidities in adults. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) comprised 30.3% of all bariatric procedures between 2009 and 2010 in the UK. This review evaluates the level 1 evidence for change in co-morbidities, quality of life (QoL) and weight provided by LAGB compared with other bariatric procedures. METHOD: Systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (1988 to May 2011) was performed. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Studies with non-surgical comparators, open gastric banding procedures or adolescent participants were excluded. Primary outcome was change in co-morbidities. Secondary outcomes included QoL, weight loss, complications, operation time and length of stay. RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Vertical banded gastroplasty, sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass were compared to LAGB. Co-morbidities were reported in two studies and QoL in one. LAGB was comparable to other procedures for both of these outcomes. All five trials showed LABG to be effective in weight loss, however all comparative procedures resulted in greater weight loss. Operative time and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter with LAGB. Short-term complications were found to be consistently lower in the LAGB group. Evidence was divided with respect to long-term complications. CONCLUSION: Co-morbidities and QoL are poorly reported and showed no difference between LAGB and other bariatric procedures. Evidence suggests that LAGB is not the most effective surgical procedure to reduce weight. LAGB is associated with lower early complications and shorter operative time and length of stay, and therefore may be preferable to patients.