Outpatient follow-up appointments for patients having curative treatment for cancer of the head and neck: are the current arrangements in need of change?

Although there are recommendations, there is little evidence about the rationale for the frequency and duration of review appointments for patients with cancer of the head and neck. We have recorded the pattern of follow-up in a tertiary cancer centre and its association with survival and recurrent disease. We used clinical letters and a prospectively maintained database to obtain details on 297 patients who were treated curatively for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity between 2005 and 2008. Mean (SD) age was 63 (12) years and 58% (n = 171) were male. Most patients were seen about 6 times in year one, 3 times in year 2, twice in year 3, twice in year 4, once or twice in year 5, and once yearly beyond year 5. Fewer clinics were scheduled for and attended by patients over 75 years of age, those with overall clinical grades 0-1, and those treated by operation alone in contrast to those who also had adjuvant radiotherapy. Patients were usually seen about 15 times over the 5 years. Taking into account the stage of the tumour and overall mortality, the number and timing of follow-up visits is adequate for the needs of patients with stage II-IV disease. Those with stage I disease may be considered for discharge after the third year if they are told about the risk factors, and signs and symptoms of recurrent disease, and surveillance in primary care.     

High division of the spinal accessory nerve and communication with a C2 branch of the cervical plexus: a previously unreported anatomical variant

Anatomical variations of the spinal accessory nerve are well known. We describe a previously unreported variant in which the nerve divided high in level II after crossing the internal jugular vein and before entering the sternomastoid muscle. Both branches were joined by a communication from the C2 cervical root. We discuss the clinical implications of this finding.     

A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials

Objectives

There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.

Methods

Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.

Results

Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7–67.3%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.

Clinical significance

Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures.Trial Registration: ISRCTN 01528038.This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014.     

Glukokortikoide zur Reduktion postoperativer Beschwerden in der Oralchirurgie

Background

Oral surgical interventions are associated with post-interventional pain, trismus and swelling of varying degrees; therefore, the occurrence of a postinterventional inflammatory reaction is of major importance.

Methoden

To reduce such symptoms, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used routinely. Additionally, glucocorticoids can be applied as adjuvants in the management of postoperative complaints due to their anti-inflammatory potency. This use of glucocorticoids is still being controversially discussed. The aim of this paper is to describe the mechanisms and indications for administration of glucocorticoids after oral surgical procedures.