Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
Laryngoscope ; 2020 Mar 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32134121


OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether antithrombotic status impacts the incidence of perioperative or postoperative bleeding in direct microlaryngoscopy (DML). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Patients undergoing DML in a single surgeon's practice from September 2012 to September 2017 were studied. Included patients underwent DML with or without biopsy, balloon dilation, microsurgery, laser ablation, or vocal fold injection. Patients were stratified based on perioperative antithrombotic status and assessed for rates of peri- and postoperative bleeding and other complications. RESULTS: Of the 581 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 179 patients (31%) had a history of baseline antithrombotic therapy. Of these patients, 124 had perioperative continuation of their therapy. Medicated patients were older (P < .01), predominately male (P < .01), and increasingly comorbid (P < .01). Perioperative complications unrelated to bleeding occurred in 22 patients (4%), minor perioperative bleeding occurred in four patients (0.7%), and minor postoperative bleeding occurred in 12 of the 479 patients with recorded follow-up (2.5%). There were no postoperative bleeds requiring intervention or readmission, and no recorded thrombotic events during the peri- and postoperative period. There was no difference in perioperative bleeding based on baseline antithrombotic status (P = .81). Patients on baseline antithrombotic therapy were more likely to have a postoperative bleed in comparison to patients without history of antithrombotic use (P < .01). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative bleeding between patients on baseline anticoagulation who continued or ceased their medication perioperatively (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative continuation of antithrombotic medications appears to be safe when performing routine DML. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 2020.

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol ; 10(2): 217-222, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31793227


BACKGROUND: In this study we aim to describe presenting characteristics and identify prognostic factors for disease resolution in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in the setting of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). METHODS: Patients evaluated at a tertiary care center with diagnoses of EGPA and CRS were identified. Descriptive statistics were obtained. Univariate analysis was used to search for prognostic factors associated with higher Lund-Mackay score at presentation and disease resolution. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included with a mean age of 52.7 (standard deviation, 14) years. Twenty-one patients (47.7%) were female, all had a diagnosis of asthma, and 36 (83.7%) had eosinophils >10%. Common presenting symptoms for CRS included nasal discharge (87.9%) followed by nasal congestion (83.9%) and facial pain and pressure (83.8%). Medical management of CRS included systemic corticosteroids (93.2%) and systemic antibiotics (75%). Surgical intervention occurred in 29 patients (67%). Nine patients (20.5%) had resolution of sinus symptoms, including 4 with imaging confirmation. Fourteen patients (31.8%) had continued CRS, but with improved symptoms, whereas 9 patients (20.5%) had continued CRS with no improvement in symptoms. Eleven patients (25%) were lost to follow-up and 4 (9.1%) died. Univariate analysis did not show antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity, presence of peripheral eosinophilia, gender, age, or absence of systemic therapy to be predictive of higher Lund-Mackay score at presentation or predictive of disease resolution. CONCLUSION: CRS in patients with EGPA is often refractory to medical and surgical management. Treatment of these patients should occur in a multidisciplinary setting.

Otol Neurotol ; 41(2): 258-264, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31789811


OBJECTIVE: The majority of research influencing our understanding of vestibular schwannoma (VS) comes from large tertiary referral centers, and as a consequence, is inherently prone to referral bias. The objective of the current study was to characterize tertiary referral center bias in VS research. STUDY DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective clinical, audiometric, and radiologic review. SETTING: One tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-three patients with sporadic VS treated at our institution, consisting of a local cohort of all 41 VS patients residing in the same US county as our medical center and a referral cohort of 82 patients from outside counties matched 2:1 based on age, sex, and year of diagnosis. INTERVENTION: Surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), observation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical manifestations, audiometric and radiologic findings, elected treatment modality. RESULTS: Local patients had significantly longer follow-up after initial presentation compared to referral patients (median 4.0 vs 2.2 yr; p = 0.007). Referral patients were significantly less likely to have an incidental VS diagnosis (1% vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and presented with worse symptomatology such as hearing loss (80% vs. 54%; p = 0.002), dizziness (72% vs. 44%; p = 0.002), headache (29% vs. 15%; p = 0.075), and other cranial nerve dysfunction (11% vs. 0%; p = 0.029). Audiometrically, referral patients had significantly poorer word recognition scores at presentation (median 70% vs. 90%; p = 0.043). Local patients were more likely to have tumors confined to the IAC compared with referral patients, and had significantly smaller tumors when restricted to this region (median 4.0 vs 6.5 mm; p = 0.005). Referral patients were significantly more likely to undergo definitive management with either radiosurgery or microsurgery following primary evaluation compared to local patients (48% vs. 24%; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the majority of existing literature surrounding VS likely suffers from referral bias, whereby disease characteristics and management decisions are distinct from that of the general VS patient population.

Aesthetic Plast Surg ; 43(3): 625-636, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30937474


BACKGROUND: Alloplastic materials in facial surgery have been used successfully for various applications in the reconstructive restoration or aesthetic augmentation of the facial skeleton. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of alloplastic implant materials utilized to augment the facial skeleton stratified by anatomical distribution, indication, specific material used, and respective outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review on alloplastic facial implant data was conducted utilizing Medline/PubMed database. Articles were stratified by (1) anatomic localization in the face, as well as (2) alloplastic material. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (n = 2100 patients, follow-up range = 1 month-27 years) were included. Overall, mersilene mesh implants were associated with the highest risk of infection (3.38%). Methyl methacrylate implants were associated with the highest rate of hematoma (5.98%). Implants placed in the malar region (2.67%) and frontal bones (2.50%) were associated with the highest rates of infection. Implants placed in the periorbital region were associated with the highest rate of inflammation (8.0%), explantation (8.0%), and poor cosmetic outcome (17.0%). Porous implants were shown to be more likely to potentiate infection than non-porous implant types. CONCLUSIONS: Alloplastic facial implants are a reliable means of restoring facial symmetry and achieving facial skeletal augmentation with a relatively low complication profile. It is important for plastic surgeons to understand the relative risks for each type of implant to develop postoperative complications or poor long-term cosmetic results. Interestingly, porous implants were shown to be more likely to potentiate infection than non-porous implant types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .