Surgical outcomes in oral cancer involving the central arch of the mandible in elderly patients: An institutional experience.

BACKGROUNDS: Oral squamous cell cancer (SCC) is one of the most common cancers. The most common age of presentation is fifth to sixth decade. Management of this disease is dictated by stage, age, and related comorbidities. Elderly patients have their own set of limitations as far as their management is concerned. Carcinoma involving central mandibular arch is a challenging disease for surgeons, especially in the elderly. This article describes our experience with the surgical treatment of oral cancer involving the central arch of the mandible in elderly patients. METHODS: Forty elderly (≥60 years) patients with histologically proven SCC of the oral cavity in which disease was involving the central arch of the mandible, were included in our study. Demographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors were recorded. The outcome was assessed in terms of postoperative complications, recurrence, and patient survival. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 63 years. The male:female ratio was 7:3. A history of oral tobacco use was present in 95% of patients. The most common site of disease was lower alveolus (80%) followed by carcinoma of the lower lip (20%). Majority of our patients (77.3% [30]) were having Stage IV disease. Mandibulectomy was either segmental (62.5%) or marginal (37.5%). Bilateral neck dissection (37/40, 92.5%) was done in most patients. Among all patients, 62.5% (25) received adjuvant radiotherapy. The local recurrence rate after a median follow-up of 30 months was 15% (6). Two-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 89% and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Central arch of the mandible is a difficult disease to treat. It needs a complex and lengthy reconstructive procedure. Comorbidities such as extreme age, diabetes, and pulmonary and cardiac illnesses make it more challenging to manage. With the proper evaluation of comorbidities and avoiding long, cumbersome procedures, we can provide patients a fairly good chance of survival.

Continuing cancer surgery through the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic university hospital in India: A lower-middle-income country experience.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) hinders the treatment of non-COVID illnesses like cancer, which may be pronounced in lower-middle-income countries. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study audited the performance of a tertiary care surgical oncology department at an academic hospital in India during the first six months of the pandemic. Difficulties faced by patients, COVID-19-related incidents (preventable cases of hospital transmission), and modifications in practice were recorded. RESULTS: From April to September 2020, outpatient consultations, inpatient admissions, and chemotherapy unit functioning reduced by 62%, 58%, and 56%, respectively, compared to the same period the previous year. Major surgeries dropped by 31% with a decrease across all sites, but an increase in head and neck cancers (p = .012, absolute difference 8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75% - 14.12%). Postoperative complications were similar (p = .593, 95% CI: -2.61% - 4.87%). Inability to keep a surgical appointment was primarily due to apprehension of infection (52%) or arranging finances (49%). Two COVID-19-related incidents resulted in infecting 27 persons. Fifteen instances of possible COVID-19-related mishaps were averted. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a decrease in the operations of the department without any adverse impact in postoperative outcomes. While challenging, treating cancer adequately during COVID-19 can be accomplished by adequate screening and testing, and religiously following the prevention guidelines.

Comparative Study of Oral Midazolam Syrup and Intranasal Midazolam Spray for Sedative Premedication in Pediatric Surgeries.

INTRODUCTION: Midazolam is a water-soluble benzodiazepine which is frequently administered by intravenous and oral routes. Its nasal spray has become recently available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, after obtaining clearance from the ethical committe, 66 patients between the age group of 4 and 10 years comparable in demographic variables were randomly allocated into two groups of 33 each. Group "O" received oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) 20 min before induction. Group "N" received intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) 20 min before induction. The heart rate and blood pressure (systolic, diastolic, and mean) and oxygen saturation (SPO2) were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The statistical analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 15.0 software. The values were represented in number (%) and mean±sd. RESULTS: Satisfactory sedation scores were better in nasal spray group than oral group. Satisfactory ease of induction scores, recovery times, and postanesthesia recovery scores were better in the nasal spray group than in the oral group. CONCLUSION: Nasal midazolam spray is acceptable and is a good alternative to oral midazolam as premedication in the pediatric population.

Oral Clonidine vs Oral Pregabalin Premedication to Attenuate Pressor Response to Direct Laryngoscopy in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Double Blind Study.

INTRODUCTION: Direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation has adverse effects like tachycardia, hypertension, myocardial ischemia and cerebral haemorrhage. There are several studies on various pharmacological agents to attenuate this response. AIM: This study was designed to compare efficacy and safety of oral clonidine and oral pregabalin premedication to attenuate stress response in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total 80 patients of ASA grade I and II, aged between 20-60 years of both sexes scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. All the patients were randomized into two groups. Group A received oral clonidine 0.3mg and group B received oral pregabalin 150mg, 60 minutes before surgery. Anaesthesia technique was standardized. Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were recorded preoperatively, after premedication, immediately after intubation, then at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, 10 min and 15 min after intubation. Level of sedation, postoperative pain scores and any adverse effects were also noted and compared. RESULTS: Oral clonidine 0.3mg as well as oral pregabalin 150mg were effective in blunting haemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Clonidine was found to be better than pregabalin in lowering of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure and heart rate changes associated with laryngoscopy. We also found that bradycardia was common with both the drugs, more so in clonidine group. Post-operative analgesia was better in pregabalin group as compared to clonidine group. Both the drugs cause sedation, but it was more with the use of pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Both the drugs can be used as an effective premedicant to attenuate the sympathetic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation without much side effects and the added advantage of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia.