Lu, Lauren Y

Objective: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse event after bariatric surgery and is associated with patient dissatisfaction and increased health care burden. Aggressive multimodal antiemetic prophylaxis and the use of propofol infusion during anesthesia are associated with the reduction of PONV. In this study, we examined the use of rescue antiemetics following bariatric surgery performed with 3 different anesthetic strategies designed to reduce PONV: (1) primary volatile (VOL) anesthetic and propofol (PROP) infusion (VOL+PROP), (2) volatile anesthetic with propofol and dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusions (VOL+PROP+DEX), or (3) opioid-sparing total intravenous anesthesia (PROP+DEX). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we included patients undergoing bariatric surgery from 2018-2022 who received 1 of 3 anesthetics: (1) VOL+PROP, (2) VOL+PROP+DEX, or (3) opioid-sparing PROP+DEX without a VOL. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis determined the association between the need for rescue-antiemetics in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and following PACU discharge. Results: Three hundred thirty-two patients received VOL+PROP, 354 VOL+PROP+DEX, and 166 PROP+DEX, and all received prophylactic antiemetics during surgery. After surgery, the PROP+DEX patients received fewer rescue antiemetics in the PACU compared with VOL+PROP (11% vs. 24%, P=0.002), and VOL+PROP+DEX fewer compared with VOL+PROP (16% vs. 24%, P=0.023). This differential antinausea effect was limited to PACU stay only. Rescue antiemetic use increased across all anesthetic management groups following PACU discharge until midnight on the day of surgery (ranging from 38% to 46% across groups, P=0.71) and through the first postoperative day (ranging from 47% to 57% across groups, P=0.20). Conclusions: The benefit associated with anesthetic strategies designed to reduce PONV was present but did not persist past PACU discharge. This finding suggests that aggressive perioperative multimodal antiemetic prophylaxis combined with anesthetic strategies designed to prevent PONV after bariatric surgery have only a short-lived effect, thus health care staff in hospital wards may expect to encounter high rates of PONV in these patients. There is a need for the development of novel antinausea treatments to reduce the rate of this frequent postoperative complication.

ImportanceLimited literature exists on surgical outcomes after selective deep lobe parotidectomy (SDLP) with preservation of superficial lobe for patients with benign deep lobe tumors.ObjectiveTo compare the following factors for SDLP vs total parotidectomy for patients with benign tumors in the deep lobe: postoperative complications, including facial nerve paresis or paralysis, Frey syndrome, first bite syndrome, cosmetic defect, sialocele formation, and wound infection; and tumor control and recurrence.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis case series included 273 adults who underwent SDLP (n = 177) or total parotidectomy (n = 96) at a single tertiary care institution for benign parotid tumors located in the deep lobe or deep lobe and parapharynx from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020.ExposureSelective deep lobe parotidectomy vs total parotidectomy.Main Outcomes and MeasuresIncidence of postoperative complications and tumor recurrence.ResultsAmong 273 patients (SDLP, 177 [65%]; 122 women [69%]; median age at surgery, 58 years [IQR, 46-67 years]; total parotidectomy, 96 [35%]; 57 women [59%]; median age at surgery, 59 years [IQR, 40-68 years]), the most common tumor was pleomorphic adenoma (SDLP, 128 of 177 [72%]; total parotidectomy, 62 of 96 [65%]). An abdominal dermal fat graft was less commonly performed for patients who underwent SDLP than those who underwent total parotidectomy (2 of 177 [1%] vs 20 of 96 [21%]; difference, −20% [95% CI, −28% to −11%]). The rate of great auricular nerve preservation was higher in the SDLP group than in the total parotidectomy group (84 of 102 [82%] vs 20 of 34 [59%]; difference, 24% [95% CI, 5%-42%]). No meaningful difference in length of hospital stay was found. The percentage of patients with House-Brackmann grade I immediately after surgery was 48% (85 of 177) in the SDLP group and 21% (20 of 96) in the total parotidectomy group (difference, 28% [95% CI, 16%-40%]). There were no clinically meaningful differences in rates of hematoma, sialocele, seroma, ear numbness, wound infection, or unplanned return to emergency department or operating room. The SDLP group reported a lower rate of Frey syndrome than the total parotidectomy group (1 of 137 [1%] vs 12 of 78 [15%]; difference, −15% [95% CI, −23% to −7%]), as well as a lower rate of facial contour defect (28 of 162 [17%] vs 25 of 84 [30%]; difference, −13% [95% CI, −24% to −1%]) and a higher rate of first bite syndrome (34 of 148 [23%] vs 7 of 78 [9%]; difference, 14% [95% CI, 5%-23%]). The percentage of patients with House-Brackmann grade I at their first follow-up visit was 67% (118 of 177) in the SDLP group compared with 49% (47 of 96) in the total parotidectomy group (difference, 17% [95% CI, 4%-30%]). There was no clinically meaningful difference in House-Brackmann grade after 1 year.Conclusions and RelevanceFindings of this case series study suggest that SDLP can be considered an effective and even superior technique for management of benign tumors in the deep parotid lobe. Advantages associated with SDLP include reduction in need for reconstruction for facial contour defect and reduction in complications, such as immediate facial nerve weakness and Frey syndrome. The incidence of first bite syndrome was higher in the SDLP group. Tumor control was not compromised by SLDP.

ObjectiveFailure to recognize symptoms of non‐human papillomavirus‐associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(−)OPSCC) at presentation can delay diagnosis and treatment. We aim to identify patient factors and provider practice patterns that delay presentation and care in HPV(−)OPSCC.MethodsRetrospective review at a tertiary care center. Patients with HPV(−)OPSCC receiving treatment from 2006 to 2016. Patients were excluded if their date of symptom onset or diagnosis was unknown after thorough review of the electronic medical record or their tissue was not tested for HPV or p16. Clinical data, workup, and care timelines were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable linear regressions were performed to determine associations between patient and provider factors and delays in care.ResultsOf 70 included patients, 52 (74%) were male and mean age was 60.5 (SD = 9.0). Median time to diagnosis was 69 days (IQR = 32–127 days), with a median latency of 30 days (IQR = 12–61 days) from symptom onset to first presentation and 19.5 days (IQR = 4–46 days) from the first presentation to diagnosis. Most patients visited at least 2 providers (n = 52, 74%) before diagnosis. Evaluation by 3 or more providers prior to diagnosis was associated with significant delays in diagnosis of nearly a year (357.7 days, p < 0.001) and being treated or prescribed analgesia prior to diagnosis was significantly associated with delays in diagnosis (p = 0.004) on univariate regression analysis.ConclusionsDelays in care related to evaluations by multiple providers and misdiagnosis prolonged time to diagnosis in HPV(−)OPSCC. Improved patient and provider education is necessary to expedite the diagnosis of HPV(−)OPSCC.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 133:1394–1401, 2023