Outpatient parotidectomy with or without the use of a post-operative drain: A retrospective bi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE: Parotid surgery is historically performed as an inpatient procedure and suctions drains are predominantly used during surgery. Recent literature provides evidence that outpatient parotid surgery is safe and effective. Our study aims to describe the results of drainless outpatient parotidectomy and outpatient parotidectomy with drain placement and compare their outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Bi-institutional retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients that underwent outpatient drain-less parotidectomy and patients that underwent outpatient parotidectomy with post-operative drain placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complication rates, unplanned post-operative visits, unplanned prolonged stay. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients underwent outpatient parotidectomy with drain placement and 31 patients underwent outpatient drainless parotidectomy in two different hospitals. The incidence of haematoma (drain: 3.1% vs. drainless: 0%, p = 1), infection (drain: 14.3% vs. drainless: 13.8%, p = 1) and salivary fistula (drain: 5.6% vs. drainless: 3.4, p = 1) were comparable between both groups. Seroma or sialocele was more frequently seen in the drain-less group (27.6% vs. 6.2%, p < .001), but were all managed conservatively. Within 10 days after surgery, unplanned visits seemed more frequent in the drain group, although the difference was not statistically significant (14.9% vs. 3.4%, p = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient parotid surgery with or without the use of a post-operative drain is safe, practical and feasible. Same-day discharge with and without drain placement yield comparable outcomes. However, the results need to be interpreted cautiously as this study was limited by a small cohort of parotidectomies without drain placement. Future studies should further compare both approaches.

A Retrospective Clinical Audit of Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Children with Multiple Disabilities in Comparison with Normal Implantees: A South Indian Experience.

AIMS: Cochlear implantation (CI) is established as a standard remedy for children with congenital bilateral profound hearing loss to attain hearing perception and thereby develop speech and language. A subgroup includes children with multiple disabilities in whom the implant helps to improve their quality of life and also of their families via enhanced communication skills. Cochlear implants today form an integral part of their multi-handicap rehabilitation process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out on children with and without multiple handicaps who have received cochlear implantation at the cochlear implant clinic of MERF, Chennai, India over the past decade. Category of Auditory Performance (CAP) scores, Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) scores, and also Meaningful Auditory-Integration Scale (MAIS) and Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS) scores were compared at set time frequencies of 6 months and 12 months post-implantation between the two groups of implanted children. RESULTS: All the four CAP, SIR, MAIS and MUSS scores showed improvement over time with auditory and speech therapy in both groups of children as reflected by the improvement in their quality of life. The normative group of implantees showed better improvement compared to the group of children with multiple disabilities. CONCLUSION: Intensive habilitation is essential especially for children with multiple disabilities who have received cochlear implantation in which their special needs are addressed individually and optimised for the best outcome. The study shows that restoration of the special sense of hearing helps as a remedy to alleviate their other multi-handicaps to a notable extent.

Management of a swallowed denture: our experience with 34 patients.

Background: Swallowed dentures can present with upper aerodigestive tract obstruction needing urgent intervention. Removing such an ingested denture can prove challenging and needs careful planning. Aim: To share our experience of managing patients with a swallowed denture focusing on the practical aspects of denture removal along with relevant literature review. We aim to raise a public health message on the safety aspect of usage of dentures. Subjects and methods: A retrospective analysis of the patients managed by our team in the ENT department at two hospitals in Scotland, over 10 years (2009-2019), who were found to have swallowed a denture. Data on demographics, clinical history, examination findings and management of patients were collected and analysed using Microsoft Excel. Results: A total of 34 patients were admitted with a swallowed denture, of which 24 (71%) were male and 10 (29%) were female. The mean age was 60 years (range 17-83). Of the 34 patients, 2 had a feeling of something stuck in the throat but were able to eat and drink; the rest of the patients complained about dysphagia and pain in the throat, with 2 patients also showing signs of respiratory distress. Twenty-four (71%) patients required denture removal under general anaesthetic in the theatre; 20 (59%) by rigid oesophagoscopy, 1 with tracheostomy (3%), 1 with (3%) laparoscopy and gastrostomy, and 2 (6%) with external neck exploration. Seven (20%) patients were taken to the theatre and the denture was removed with Magill forceps under light sedation using intubating laryngoscope or video laryngoscope. In 1 patient (3%), the denture material was successfully removed under flexible pharyngolaryngoscopy guidance in the clinic without sedation. The final 2 (6%) patients were reassured as no foreign body was seen on flexible laryngoscopy. Conclusion: In the absence of a clear evidence of denture ingestion, a detailed history and examination are needed to identify this serious pathology. Once confirmed, the ingested denture should be removed as soon as possible to minimize the risk of serious complications.