Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 189
Filtrar
1.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 162(1_suppl): S1-S38, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31910111

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

2.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 162(1): 8-25, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31910122

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the great majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients, patients with hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function, are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the working group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based upon their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include 1 or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT). (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

3.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol ; 124: 190-192, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31202037

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Upper lip tie, without concomitant tongue tie, can prevent proper flanging of the upper lip during breastfeeding, resulting in a poor seal and suck for the infant with nipple pain and maternal dissatisfaction. Due to the lack of published studies on this subject, we report our technique and outcomes for in-office release of isolated upper lip tie. METHODS: Using CPT Code 40,806 for 'incision of labial frenulum', 22 mother-infant dyads with infant age under 60 days with breastfeeding problems and a restrictive upper lip frenum were identified. These infants underwent in-office release of upper lip tie as detailed below. Outcomes of the procedure were assessed by a telephone survey to mothers within the 4-week period post-procedure. RESULTS: 82% of mothers reported an improved latch and 73% noted increased satisfaction with breastfeeding. Lip pain, if present, resolved within 24 h for most children. Recurrence was reported by 9% of mothers; no infection or other complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Upper lip frenotomy, in properly selected infants, has favorable short-term outcomes with mild transient discomfort and a low rate of recurrence. Since our study was short-term and did not include a control group, we are unable to comment on procedure efficacy or long-term impact.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Ambulatórios , Aleitamento Materno , Freio Labial/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Mucosa Bucal/cirurgia , Recidiva , Comportamento de Sucção , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 161(1): 6-17, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31161864

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of balloon dilation of the eustachian tube (BDET). METHODS: An expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled with nominated representatives of general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population was adults 18 years or older who are candidates for BDET because of obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction (OETD) in 1 or both ears for 3 months or longer that significantly affects quality of life or functional health status. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus. RESULTS: After 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 28 statements met the predefined criteria for consensus, while 28 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for the purposes of presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes. CONCLUSION: This panel reached consensus on several statements that clarify diagnosis and perioperative management of OETD. Lack of consensus on other statements likely reflects knowledge gaps regarding the role of BDET in managing OETD. Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of BDET for the management of patients with OETD.


Assuntos
Dilatação/métodos , Otopatias/diagnóstico , Otopatias/cirurgia , Tuba Auditiva/cirurgia , Técnica Delfos , Humanos
5.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 161(1): 3-5, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31013211

RESUMO

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), developed to inform clinicians, patients, and policy makers about what constitutes optimal clinical care, are one way of increasing implementation of evidence into clinical practice. Many factors must be considered by multidisciplinary guideline panels, including strength of available evidence, limitations of current knowledge, risks/benefits of interventions, patient values, and limited resources. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a framework for summarizing evidence that has been endorsed by many national and international organizations for developing CPGs. But is GRADE the right choice for CPGs developed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF)? In this commentary, we will introduce GRADE, discuss its strengths and limitations, and address the question of what potential benefits GRADE might offer beyond existing methodology used by the AAO-HNSF in developing CPGs.


Assuntos
Otolaringologia/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Academias e Institutos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Fundações , Humanos , Sociedades Médicas
6.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 160(2): 187-205, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30921525

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This update of a 2011 guideline developed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and postoperative care and management of children 1 to 18 years of age under consideration for tonsillectomy. Tonsillectomy is defined as a surgical procedure performed with or without adenoidectomy that completely removes the tonsil, including its capsule, by dissecting the peritonsillar space between the tonsil capsule and the muscular wall. Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States, with 289,000 ambulatory procedures performed annually in children <15 years of age, based on the most recent published data. This guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who interact with children who may be candidates for tonsillectomy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing children under consideration for tonsillectomy and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to educate clinicians, patients, and/or caregivers regarding the indications for tonsillectomy and the natural history of recurrent throat infections. Additional goals include the following: optimizing the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy, emphasizing the need for evaluation and intervention in special populations, improving the counseling and education of families who are considering tonsillectomy for their children, highlighting the management options for patients with modifying factors, and reducing inappropriate or unnecessary variations in care. Children aged 1 to 18 years under consideration for tonsillectomy are the target patient for the guideline. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of nursing, anesthesiology, consumers, family medicine, infectious disease, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and sleep medicine. KEY ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should recommend watchful waiting for recurrent throat infection if there have been <7 episodes in the past year, <5 episodes per year in the past 2 years, or <3 episodes per year in the past 3 years. (2) Clinicians should administer a single intraoperative dose of intravenous dexamethasone to children undergoing tonsillectomy. (3) Clinicians should recommend ibuprofen, acetaminophen, or both for pain control after tonsillectomy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should assess the child with recurrent throat infection who does not meet criteria in KAS 2 for modifying factors that may nonetheless favor tonsillectomy, which may include but are not limited to multiple antibiotic allergies/intolerance, PFAPA (periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and adenitis), or history of >1 peritonsillar abscess. (2) Clinicians should ask caregivers of children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing and tonsillar hypertrophy about comorbid conditions that may improve after tonsillectomy, including growth retardation, poor school performance, enuresis, asthma, and behavioral problems. (3) Before performing tonsillectomy, the clinician should refer children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing for polysomnography if they are <2 years of age or if they exhibit any of the following: obesity, Down syndrome, craniofacial abnormalities, neuromuscular disorders, sickle cell disease, or mucopolysaccharidoses. (4) The clinician should advocate for polysomnography prior to tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep-disordered breathing in children without any of the comorbidities listed in KAS 5 for whom the need for tonsillectomy is uncertain or when there is discordance between the physical examination and the reported severity of obstructive sleep-disordered breathing. (5) Clinicians should recommend tonsillectomy for children with obstructive sleep apnea documented by overnight polysomnography. (6) Clinicians should counsel patients and caregivers and explain that obstructive sleep-disordered breathing may persist or recur after tonsillectomy and may require further management. (7) The clinician should counsel patients and caregivers regarding the importance of managing posttonsillectomy pain as part of the perioperative education process and should reinforce this counseling at the time of surgery with reminders about the need to anticipate, reassess, and adequately treat pain after surgery. (8) Clinicians should arrange for overnight, inpatient monitoring of children after tonsillectomy if they are <3 years old or have severe obstructive sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index ≥10 obstructive events/hour, oxygen saturation nadir <80%, or both). (9) Clinicians should follow up with patients and/or caregivers after tonsillectomy and document in the medical record the presence or absence of bleeding within 24 hours of surgery (primary bleeding) and bleeding occurring later than 24 hours after surgery (secondary bleeding). (10) Clinicians should determine their rate of primary and secondary posttonsillectomy bleeding at least annually. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 2 actions: (1) Clinicians should not administer or prescribe perioperative antibiotics to children undergoing tonsillectomy. (2) Clinicians must not administer or prescribe codeine, or any medication containing codeine, after tonsillectomy in children younger than 12 years. The policy level for the recommendation about documenting recurrent throat infection was an option: (1) Clinicians may recommend tonsillectomy for recurrent throat infection with a frequency of at least 7 episodes in the past year, at least 5 episodes per year for 2 years, or at least 3 episodes per year for 3 years with documentation in the medical record for each episode of sore throat and ≥1 of the following: temperature >38.3°C (101°F), cervical adenopathy, tonsillar exudate, or positive test for group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus. DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporating new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply. There were 1 new clinical practice guideline, 26 new systematic reviews, and 13 new randomized controlled trials included in the current guideline update. Inclusion of 2 consumer advocates on the guideline update group. Changes to 5 KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1 (Watchful waiting for recurrent throat infection), KAS 3 (Tonsillectomy for recurrent infection with modifying factors), KAS 4 (Tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep-disordered breathing), KAS 9 (Perioperative pain counseling), and KAS 10 (Perioperative antibiotics). Seven new KASs: KAS 5 (Indications for polysomnography), KAS 6 (Additional recommendations for polysomnography), KAS 7 (Tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea), KAS 12 (Inpatient monitoring for children after tonsillectomy), KAS 13 (Postoperative ibuprofen and acetaminophen), KAS 14 (Postoperative codeine), and KAS 15a (Outcome assessment for bleeding). Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs. Enhanced emphasis on patient and/or caregiver education and shared decision making.


Assuntos
Adenoidectomia/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Melhoria de Qualidade , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/etiologia , Tonsilectomia/normas , Tonsilite/complicações , Adenoidectomia/métodos , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Medição de Risco , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/fisiopatologia , Tonsilectomia/métodos , Tonsilite/diagnóstico , Tonsilite/cirurgia , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
7.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 160(1_suppl): S1-S42, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30798778

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This update of a 2011 guideline developed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and postoperative care and management of children 1 to 18 years of age under consideration for tonsillectomy. Tonsillectomy is defined as a surgical procedure performed with or without adenoidectomy that completely removes the tonsil, including its capsule, by dissecting the peritonsillar space between the tonsil capsule and the muscular wall. Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States, with 289,000 ambulatory procedures performed annually in children <15 years of age based on the most recent published data. This guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who interact with children who may be candidates for tonsillectomy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing children under consideration for tonsillectomy and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to educate clinicians, patients, and/or caregivers regarding the indications for tonsillectomy and the natural history of recurrent throat infections. Additional goals include the following: optimizing the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy, emphasizing the need for evaluation and intervention in special populations, improving the counseling and education of families who are considering tonsillectomy for their children, highlighting the management options for patients with modifying factors, and reducing inappropriate or unnecessary variations in care. Children aged 1 to 18 years under consideration for tonsillectomy are the target patient for the guideline. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of nursing, anesthesiology, consumers, family medicine, infectious disease, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and sleep medicine. KEY ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should recommend watchful waiting for recurrent throat infection if there have been <7 episodes in the past year, <5 episodes per year in the past 2 years, or <3 episodes per year in the past 3 years. (2) Clinicians should administer a single intraoperative dose of intravenous dexamethasone to children undergoing tonsillectomy. (3) Clinicians should recommend ibuprofen, acetaminophen, or both for pain control after tonsillectomy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should assess the child with recurrent throat infection who does not meet criteria in KAS 2 for modifying factors that may nonetheless favor tonsillectomy, which may include but are not limited to multiple antibiotic allergies/intolerance, PFAPA (periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and adenitis), or history of >1 peritonsillar abscess. (2) Clinicians should ask caregivers of children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing and tonsillar hypertrophy about comorbid conditions that may improve after tonsillectomy, including growth retardation, poor school performance, enuresis, asthma, and behavioral problems. (3) Before performing tonsillectomy, the clinician should refer children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing for polysomnography if they are <2 years of age or if they exhibit any of the following: obesity, Down syndrome, craniofacial abnormalities, neuromuscular disorders, sickle cell disease, or mucopolysaccharidoses. (4) The clinician should advocate for polysomnography prior to tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep-disordered breathing in children without any of the comorbidities listed in KAS 5 for whom the need for tonsillectomy is uncertain or when there is discordance between the physical examination and the reported severity of oSDB. (5) Clinicians should recommend tonsillectomy for children with obstructive sleep apnea documented by overnight polysomnography. (6) Clinicians should counsel patients and caregivers and explain that obstructive sleep-disordered breathing may persist or recur after tonsillectomy and may require further management. (7) The clinician should counsel patients and caregivers regarding the importance of managing posttonsillectomy pain as part of the perioperative education process and should reinforce this counseling at the time of surgery with reminders about the need to anticipate, reassess, and adequately treat pain after surgery. (8) Clinicians should arrange for overnight, inpatient monitoring of children after tonsillectomy if they are <3 years old or have severe obstructive sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index ≥10 obstructive events/hour, oxygen saturation nadir <80%, or both). (9) Clinicians should follow up with patients and/or caregivers after tonsillectomy and document in the medical record the presence or absence of bleeding within 24 hours of surgery (primary bleeding) and bleeding occurring later than 24 hours after surgery (secondary bleeding). (10) Clinicians should determine their rate of primary and secondary posttonsillectomy bleeding at least annually. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 2 actions: (1) Clinicians should not administer or prescribe perioperative antibiotics to children undergoing tonsillectomy. (2) Clinicians must not administer or prescribe codeine, or any medication containing codeine, after tonsillectomy in children younger than 12 years. The policy level for the recommendation about documenting recurrent throat infection was an option: (1) Clinicians may recommend tonsillectomy for recurrent throat infection with a frequency of at least 7 episodes in the past year, at least 5 episodes per year for 2 years, or at least 3 episodes per year for 3 years with documentation in the medical record for each episode of sore throat and ≥1 of the following: temperature >38.3°C (101°F), cervical adenopathy, tonsillar exudate, or positive test for group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus. DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: (1) Incorporating new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply. (2) There were 1 new clinical practice guideline, 26 new systematic reviews, and 13 new randomized controlled trials included in the current guideline update. (3) Inclusion of 2 consumer advocates on the guideline update group. (4) Changes to 5 KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1 (Watchful waiting for recurrent throat infection), KAS 3 (Tonsillectomy for recurrent infection with modifying factors), KAS 4 (Tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep-disordered breathing), KAS 9 (Perioperative pain counseling), and KAS 10 (Perioperative antibiotics). (5) Seven new KASs: KAS 5 (Indications for polysomnography), KAS 6 (Additional recommendations for polysomnography), KAS 7 (Tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea), KAS 12 (Inpatient monitoring for children after tonsillectomy), KAS 13 (Postoperative ibuprofen and acetaminophen), KAS 14 (Postoperative codeine), and KAS 15a (Outcome assessment for bleeding). (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs. (7) Enhanced emphasis on patient and/or caregiver education and shared decision making.


Assuntos
Doenças Faríngeas/cirurgia , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/cirurgia , Tonsilectomia , Criança , Humanos , Tonsilectomia/efeitos adversos , Tonsilectomia/métodos
8.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 160(2): 215-222, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30296901

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the surgical outcomes of supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and free tissue transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. REVIEW METHODS: Independent screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors. Only studies that directly compared SCAIF and FTT were included. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to evaluate extent of bias in studies. RESULTS: The initial query yielded 661 results, of which 4 comparative studies remained for final analysis. The pooled sample sizes for the SCAIF and FTT cohorts were 100 and 84, respectively. SCAIF was associated with reduction of operative time by a large effect size (SMD, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-2.52). The harvested flap areas and perioperative complications, including rates of total flap loss, partial flap necrosis, and recipient/donor site dehiscences, were comparable between the 2 procedures with low to high heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION: SCAIF requires less operative time and has comparable short-term perioperative results to FTT. The findings of this study support the viability of SCAIF as an alternative to FTT and provide evidence for its inclusion in the reconstructive armamentarium of major head and neck ablation and trauma.


Assuntos
Retalhos de Tecido Biológico/transplante , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/cirurgia , Retalho Perfurante/transplante , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Reconstrutivos/métodos , Cicatrização/fisiologia , Artérias/cirurgia , Clavícula/irrigação sanguínea , Clavícula/cirurgia , Feminino , Retalhos de Tecido Biológico/irrigação sanguínea , Rejeição de Enxerto , Sobrevivência de Enxerto , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/patologia , Humanos , Masculino , Duração da Cirurgia , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco
9.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 160(2): 232-238, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30300093

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Several surgical interventions are offered to patients with Ménière's disease (MD) who fail medical management. Although outcomes have historically been reported according to American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery guidelines, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate treatments. This study reviews PROMs used to assess surgical treatments for MD and compares the effect of each intervention based on PROM scores. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language studies that reported PROMs for surgical treatments of MD. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated the quality using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and abstracted data for comparative analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis of pooled data. RESULTS: Of 148 unique studies identified, 11 satisfied inclusion criteria. The Ménière's Disease Outcome Questionnaire (MDOQ) was the most commonly used survey. Interventions included intratympanic gentamicin, vestibular nerve section, endolymphatic sac surgery, and labyrinthectomy. Pooled analysis of 8 studies that used the MDOQ instrument demonstrated statistically significant improvements in quality of life but did not identify a difference between destructive and nondestructive procedures. CONCLUSION: Although our review shows significant improvements in PROM scores for both destructive and nondestructive interventions, there was no significant difference noted between treatment types. We cannot draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of specific interventions, and the results do not account for placebo effects or the natural history of the disease. Further investigation with randomized controlled trials should be considered in future studies.


Assuntos
Doença de Meniere/diagnóstico , Doença de Meniere/cirurgia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
10.
Laryngoscope ; 129(7): 1587-1596, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30325513

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional neck dissection in patients with head and neck malignancy. METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases was conducted. We included studies with direct comparisons of robotic and open neck dissections and performed dual, independent data extraction for primary outcomes of nodal yield, recurrence rate, subjective cosmetic assessment, operative time, length of stay, and rates of perioperative complications. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD), absolute risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Eleven comparative studies comprising 225 robotic and 430 open neck dissections met the final selection criteria. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Robotic surgery improved cosmesis (SMD 1.15, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56) but also increased operative time (SMD 1.94, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.63). Total nodal yield, pathological nodal yield, recurrence rate, rates of perioperative complications, and length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups, and the 95% CIs suggested that false negative results were unlikely. The results remained consistent after stratification by pathology and robotic technique. CONCLUSION: Although robotic neck dissection may offer similar perioperative outcomes compared to conventional neck dissection, it requires significantly more operative time. Whereas cosmesis was found to be superior among the robotic cohort, this must be viewed cautiously given the nonvalidated measurement tool that was used and the inherent reporting bias associated with it. Laryngoscope, 129:1587-1596, 2019.


Assuntos
Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/cirurgia , Esvaziamento Cervical/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Humanos
11.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 159(1): 3-10, 2018 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29968525

RESUMO

Patient safety/quality improvement (PS/QI) is the cornerstone of 21st-century health care. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is excited to provide a dedicated PS/QI primer. The overarching goal for this PS/QI series is to provide a comprehensive and practical resource that assists readers, authors, and peer reviewers in understanding PS/QI research, its unique methodology, and the associated reporting standards for trustworthy performance measures. The target audience includes resident and fellows, faculty from the private sector and academia, and allied health professionals. This inaugural primer reviews PS/QI background as it relates to otolaryngology practice. It explores the history, goals, and development of performance measurement. In addition, it highlights opportunities for integrating PS/QI into otolaryngology practice. Payers will drive patients to quality care based on outcomes. Otolaryngologists have a responsibility to embrace a culture of PS/QI. In doing so, we will define optimal, quality otolaryngology care through objective data and metrics.


Assuntos
Otolaringologia/normas , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Melhoria de Qualidade , Humanos , Reembolso de Incentivo
12.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 159(4): 608-614, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29989849

RESUMO

Objective To assist otolaryngologists in counseling patients with hoarseness who would benefit from injection laryngoplasty on whether or not to perform the procedure in the office vs the operating room. Data Sources Cochrane library, CINAHL, PubMed, and EMBASE. Review Methods Systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting standards of English-language articles that compared voice outcomes for in-office and in the operating room injection laryngoplasty. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated the quality using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and abstracted data for comparative analysis. Results Of 689 initial studies, 4 observational, comparative studies met inclusion criteria, with follow-up of 2 weeks to 12 months postinjection. Laryngoplasty was most commonly performed for vocal fold immobility with varied injectable materials (micronized dermis, hyaluronic acid, and calcium hydroxyapatite). Follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months. Voice outcomes improved in all studies, with comparable improvement for patients injected in the office vs the operating room ( P = .42 to P = .88). Meta-analysis of 3 studies showed no difference in Voice Handicap Index-10 voice outcomes by treatment setting (standardized mean difference -0.11, P = .441), with the 95% confidence interval (-0.405 to 0.176), making it unlikely that anything larger than a small or trivial difference was missed. Conclusion Our systematic review makes it unlikely that meaningful clinical differences exist in postprocedure voice outcomes for injection laryngoplasty in the office vs the operating room.


Assuntos
Anestesia Geral/métodos , Anestesia Local/métodos , Laringoplastia/métodos , Distúrbios da Voz/terapia , Qualidade da Voz , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Intralesionais , Masculino , Visita a Consultório Médico/estatística & dados numéricos , Salas Cirúrgicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento , Prega Vocal/efeitos dos fármacos , Prega Vocal/fisiopatologia , Distúrbios da Voz/diagnóstico
14.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 158(2): 203-214, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29389303

RESUMO

Objective To develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of sinus ostial dilation (SOD) of the paranasal sinuses. Methods An expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled to represent general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population is adults 18 years or older with chronic or recurrent rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps, with or without prior sinus surgery) for whom SOD is being recommended, defined as endoscopic use of a balloon device to enlarge or open the outflow tracts of the maxillary, frontal, or sphenoid sinuses, as a standalone procedure or with endoscopic surgery. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus. Results After 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 13 statements met the standardized definition of consensus while 45 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes. Strong consensus was obtained for not performing SOD in patients without sinonasal symptoms or positive findings on computed tomography (CT) in patients with symptoms only of headache or sleep apnea without criteria for sinusitis. In addition, strong consensus was met that CT scan of the sinuses was necessary before performing SOD and that surgeons need to understand and abide by regulations set forth by the US Food and Drug Administration if they choose to reuse/reprocess devices. Conclusion Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of SOD for the management of patients with a diagnosis of rhinosinusitis. This panel reached consensus on a number of statements that defined the use of SOD as inappropriate in the management of a variety of symptoms or diseases in the absence of underlying sinusitis. When patients meet the definition of chronic sinusitis as confirmed by CT scan, SOD of the sinuses can be indicated and/or effective in certain scenarios. Additional consensus statements regarding proper setting and safeguards for performing the procedure are described.


Assuntos
Dilatação/métodos , Endoscopia/métodos , Rinite/terapia , Sinusite/terapia , Adulto , Doença Crônica , Técnica Delfos , Humanos , Pólipos Nasais/complicações , Recidiva
16.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 158(1): 16-20, 2018 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29039253

RESUMO

Clinical practice guideline development should be driven by rigorous methodology, but what is less clear is where quality improvement enters the process: should it be a priority-guiding force, or should it enter only after recommendations are formulated? We argue for a stakeholder-driven approach to guideline development, with an overriding goal of quality improvement based on stakeholder perceptions of needs, uncertainties, and knowledge gaps. In contrast, the widely used topic-driven approach, which often makes recommendations based only on randomized controlled trials, is driven by epidemiologic purity and evidence rigor, with quality improvement a downstream consideration. The advantages of a stakeholder-driven versus a topic-driven approach are highlighted by comparisons of guidelines for otitis media with effusion, thyroid nodules, sepsis, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. These comparisons show that stakeholder-driven guidelines are more likely to address the quality improvement needs and pressing concerns of clinicians and patients, including understudied populations and patients with multiple chronic conditions. Conversely, a topic-driven approach often addresses "typical" patients, based on research that may not reflect the needs of high-risk groups excluded from studies because of ethical issues or a desire for purity of research design.


Assuntos
Otolaringologia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Melhoria de Qualidade , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos
17.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 158(2): 249-256, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29065273

RESUMO

Objective Up to 75% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) suffer with poor sleep quality and reduced quality of life. Endoscopic sinus surgery has demonstrated encouraging results in improving sleep function. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the change in sleep quality after surgery for CRS. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords "sinusitis" or "rhinosinusitis" and "sleep." Studies were included only when adults underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and were evaluated pre- and postoperatively by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), the sleep domain of Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22, or the sleep domain of Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Results The database search yielded 1939 studies, of which 7 remained after dual-investigator screening. The standardized mean differences (95% CI) for the ESS, PSQI, and AHI were -0.94 (-1.63 to -0.26), -0.80 (-1.46 to -0.14), and -0.20 (-0.32 to -0.07), indicating large, moderate to large, and small improvements, respectively. All analyses displayed high heterogeneity ( I2 = 95%-99%). Conclusion Sleep quality, as measured by the ESS and PSQI surveys, shows substantial improvement after surgery for CRS, with smaller improvement seen for AHI. Generalizability of our results is limited by high heterogeneity among studies and by broad confidence intervals that cannot exclude small to trivial changes. The findings of this meta-analysis provide insight into the effect of CRS-related endoscopic sinus surgery on sleep quality, which should guide future research direction and counseling of patients in the clinical setting.


Assuntos
Endoscopia/métodos , Seios Paranasais/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Rinite/cirurgia , Sinusite/cirurgia , Sono/fisiologia , Doença Crônica , Humanos
18.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 157(2_suppl): S1-S30, 2017 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28891406

RESUMO

Objective Neck masses are common in adults, but often the underlying etiology is not easily identifiable. While infections cause most of the neck masses in children, most persistent neck masses in adults are neoplasms. Malignant neoplasms far exceed any other etiology of adult neck mass. Importantly, an asymptomatic neck mass may be the initial or only clinically apparent manifestation of head and neck cancer, such as squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), lymphoma, thyroid, or salivary gland cancer. Evidence suggests that a neck mass in the adult patient should be considered malignant until proven otherwise. Timely diagnosis of a neck mass due to metastatic HNSCC is paramount because delayed diagnosis directly affects tumor stage and worsens prognosis. Unfortunately, despite substantial advances in testing modalities over the last few decades, diagnostic delays are common. Currently, there is only 1 evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist clinicians in evaluating an adult with a neck mass. Additionally, much of the available information is fragmented, disorganized, or focused on specific etiologies. In addition, although there is literature related to the diagnostic accuracy of individual tests, there is little guidance about rational sequencing of tests in the course of clinical care. This guideline strives to bring a coherent, evidence-based, multidisciplinary perspective to the evaluation of the neck mass with the intention to facilitate prompt diagnosis and enhance patient outcomes. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to promote the efficient, effective, and accurate diagnostic workup of neck masses to ensure that adults with potentially malignant disease receive prompt diagnosis and intervention to optimize outcomes. Specific goals include reducing delays in diagnosis of HNSCC; promoting appropriate testing, including imaging, pathologic evaluation, and empiric medical therapies; reducing inappropriate testing; and promoting appropriate physical examination when cancer is suspected. The target patient for this guideline is anyone ≥18 years old with a neck mass. The target clinician for this guideline is anyone who may be the first clinician whom a patient with a neck mass encounters. This includes clinicians in primary care, dentistry, and emergency medicine, as well as pathologists and radiologists who have a role in diagnosing neck masses. This guideline does not apply to children. This guideline addresses the initial broad differential diagnosis of a neck mass in an adult. However, the intention is only to assist the clinician with a basic understanding of the broad array of possible entities. The intention is not to direct management of a neck mass known to originate from thyroid, salivary gland, mandibular, or dental pathology as management recommendations for these etiologies already exist. This guideline also does not address the subsequent management of specific pathologic entities, as treatment recommendations for benign and malignant neck masses can be found elsewhere. Instead, this guideline is restricted to addressing the appropriate work-up of an adult patient with a neck mass that may be malignant in order to expedite diagnosis and referral to a head and neck cancer specialist. The Guideline Development Group sought to craft a set of actionable statements relevant to diagnostic decisions made by a clinician in the workup of an adult patient with a neck mass. Furthermore, where possible, the Guideline Development Group incorporated evidence to promote high-quality and cost-effective care. Action Statements The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians should order a neck computed tomography (or magnetic resonance imaging) with contrast for patients with a neck mass deemed at increased risk for malignancy. The development group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should identify patients with a neck mass who are at increased risk for malignancy because the patient lacks a history of infectious etiology and the mass has been present for ≥2 weeks without significant fluctuation or the mass is of uncertain duration. (2) Clinicians should identify patients with a neck mass who are at increased risk for malignancy based on ≥1 of these physical examination characteristics: fixation to adjacent tissues, firm consistency, size >1.5 cm, or ulceration of overlying skin. (3) Clinicians should conduct an initial history and physical examination for patients with a neck mass to identify those with other suspicious findings that represent an increased risk for malignancy. (4) For patients with a neck mass who are not at increased risk for malignancy, clinicians or their designees should advise patients of criteria that would trigger the need for additional evaluation. Clinicians or their designees should also document a plan for follow-up to assess resolution or final diagnosis. (5) For patients with a neck mass who are deemed at increased risk for malignancy, clinicians or their designees should explain to the patient the significance of being at increased risk and explain any recommended diagnostic tests. (6) Clinicians should perform, or refer the patient to a clinician who can perform, a targeted physical examination (including visualizing the mucosa of the larynx, base of tongue, and pharynx) for patients with a neck mass deemed at increased risk for malignancy. (7) Clinicians should perform fine-needle aspiration (FNA) instead of open biopsy, or refer the patient to someone who can perform FNA, for patients with a neck mass deemed at increased risk for malignancy when the diagnosis of the neck mass remains uncertain. (8) For patients with a neck mass deemed at increased risk for malignancy, clinicians should continue evaluation of patients with a cystic neck mass, as determined by FNA or imaging studies, until a diagnosis is obtained and should not assume that the mass is benign. (9) Clinicians should obtain additional ancillary tests based on the patient's history and physical examination when a patient with a neck mass is deemed at increased risk for malignancy who does not have a diagnosis after FNA and imaging. (10) Clinicians should recommend evaluation of the upper aerodigestive tract under anesthesia, before open biopsy, for patients with a neck mass deemed at increased risk for malignancy and without a diagnosis or primary site identified with FNA, imaging, and/or ancillary tests. The development group recommended against clinicians routinely prescribing antibiotic therapy for patients with a neck mass unless there are signs and symptoms of bacterial infection.


Assuntos
Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/diagnóstico , Adulto , Biópsia por Agulha Fina , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/etiologia , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/terapia , Humanos , Imagem por Ressonância Magnética , Exame Físico , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X
19.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 157(3): 355-371, 2017 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28891424

RESUMO

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation has published a supplement to this issue of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery featuring the "Clinical Practice Guideline: Evaluation of the Neck Mass in Adults." To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 12 recommendations developed emphasize reducing delays in diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; promoting appropriate testing, including imaging, pathologic evaluation, and empiric medical therapies; reducing inappropriate testing; and promoting appropriate physical examination when cancer is suspected.


Assuntos
Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/diagnóstico , Adulto , Algoritmos , Humanos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto
20.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 157(2): 289-296, 2017 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28535109

RESUMO

Objectives Our objectives were (1) to assess patterns of intranasal steroid administration when otitis media with effusion (OME) has been diagnosed in children, (2) to investigate whether usage varies according to visit setting, and (3) to determine if practice gaps are such that quality improvement could be tracked. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis of an administrative database. Subjects and Methods National Ambulatory and Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, 2005 to 2012; univariate, multivariate, and stratified analyses of intranasal steroid usage were performed. The primary outcome was intranasal steroid administration, and the primary predictor was a diagnosis of OME. The impact of location of service was also analyzed. Results Data representing 1,943,177,903 visits demonstrated that intranasal steroids were administered in 10.0% of visits in which OME was diagnosed, in comparison to 3.5% of visits in which OME was not diagnosed (univariate odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-5.08; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other confounding conditions, multivariate analysis demonstrated that OME remained associated with an increase in intranasal steroid usage (odds ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.60-8.01; P = .002). This practice pattern was more prevalent in the ambulatory office setting (risk difference 6.6%, P < .001) and less seen in a hospital-based office or emergency department. Conclusion Despite randomized controlled trials showing a lack of efficacy for isolated OME, nasal steroids continue to be used in treating children with OME in the United States. Related quality improvement opportunities to prevent usage of an ineffective treatment exist.


Assuntos
Otite Média com Derrame/tratamento farmacológico , Padrões de Prática Médica , Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Administração Intranasal , Criança , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Prescrição Inadequada , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Melhoria de Qualidade , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA