Treatment of nasopharyngeal stenosis by prosthetic hollow stents: Clinical experience in eight patients.

OBJECTIVE: A series of nasopharyngeal appliance designs is presented that represents our evolving experience over a 20-year period in the adjunctive use of prosthetic stents in the surgical correction of nasopharyngeal stenosis. DESIGN: Retrospective assessment of effectiveness of two nasopharyngeal stenosis hollow stent designs in a consecutive series of patients for relief of nasal obstructive symptoms. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center, Craniofacial Program at Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: Four patients with nasopharyngeal stenosis were treated with a preoperatively fabricated stent made from a clasped palatal appliance onto which hollow acrylic conduits were extended through surgically re-created pharyngeal ports. A subsequent set of four patients with nasopharyngeal stenosis were treated with intraoperatively-fashioned silastic grommets, as opposed to palatal appliances. INTERVENTIONS: Postoperative intraoral stenting of nasopharyngeal ports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maintenance of pharyngeal port opening after 1 year, improvement in nasal airway obstructive symptoms. RESULTS: The palatal appliance stents were less well tolerated and had a lower maintenance of port patency after device removal (4 of 8, 50%). The silastic grommets provided better retention into the ports and increased patient tolerance, as well as better 1-year port maintenance (6 of 8, 75%). CONCLUSIONS: The grommet stent appliance offers numerous advantages over a conventional dental-clasped appliance for prosthetic nasopharyngeal stenting, including obviation of extensive preoperative preparation, ease of insertion and removal, and exchange of air during the stenting period. Improved nasopharyngeal patency with this device may be due to greater patient tolerance and subsequent longer use.     

Oral beta2-agonist use by preschool children with asthma in East and Central Harlem, New York.

Although studies have documented underuse of controller medications and overuse of short-acting inhaled ss(2)-agonist among children with persistent asthma in disadvantaged communities, the persistence of oral ss(2)-agonist use in pediatric practice has not been studied since inhaled short-acting ss(2)-agonists became widespread. We describe medications used to treat asthma among children 3 to 5 years of age at 10 Head Start and other subsidized preschool centers in East and Central Harlem, New York City. We interviewed 149 parents/guardians of children who were identified as having probable asthma based on physician's diagnosis, persistent symptoms, hospitalization, and medication use. We classified 86 of the 149 children (58%) as having current persistent asthma. Only 15 of them (17%) were reported to have used controller medications at least 5 days/week in the last 4 weeks-only 2 of whom used inhaled corticosteroids. By contrast, 53 children (62%) used oral ss(2)-agonist in the last 4 weeks, often (72%) in conjunction with nebulized or inhaled short-acting ss(2)-agonist. Use of oral ss(2)-agonist was associated with more severe symptoms. This study documents the continued widespread use of oral ss(2)-agonist for treatment of children in a low-income community with high prevalence of asthma.     

PDT in clinics: indications, results, and markets.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is based on the selective light activation of an exogenously given drug to patients. PDT acts mainly on cell membranes either of neovascular endothelial cells or of cancer cells leading to cancer cell death. Six drugs are now marketed based on clinical assays in various indications, which showed a clear cost efficiency as compared to other classical procedures. PDT is easy to handle and can be performed in medical installations fitting the conditions of health care in developing countries. Its cost effectiveness could represent an appropriate solution to the increasing number of cancers of various origin. However despite all the clinical results now available, PDT development remains slow. The reasons for this situation include cost of development, intellectual property, and competition between pharmaceutical companies.