Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Intravenous (IV) ibuprofen was approved by the FDA for use in pediatric patients in November 2015. The objective of this study was to compare bleeding rates in pediatric tonsillectomy patients who received intraoperative intravenous ibuprofen versus those who did not. Secondary objectives included analyzing factors that correlated with return to the Emergency Department (ED) for pain or dehydration. METHODS:Charts were reviewed for all patients 0-18 years of age who underwent a tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy at a tertiary care children's hospital from 1/1/2017 through 5/21/2018. Demographic information and perioperative medications including the use of intraoperative intravenous ibuprofen were recorded. ED visits and operating room (OR) returns for bleeding were tracked for up to 30 days after surgery. RESULTS:1085 charts were analyzed. Intraoperative IV ibuprofen was used in 132 cases (12.2%). Primary bleeds, defined as bleeding within 24 h of surgery, occurred in 1 (0.76%) of 132 patients who received IV ibuprofen, and 1 (0.10%) of 953 patients who did not receive IV ibuprofen. Secondary bleeds, defined as bleeds after 24 h from surgery occurred in 2 (1.52%) of 132 patients who received IV ibuprofen and 38 (3.99%) of 953 patients who did not receive IV ibuprofen. No statistical difference was found between the two groups in rates of overall (primary plus secondary) bleeding requiring return to ED (p = 0.759) or return to OR (p = 0.710). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The observed bleeding rate after pediatric tonsillectomy was not statistically different in patients who received intraoperative IV ibuprofen versus those who did not receive this medication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

OBJECTIVES:Our objectives were (1) to use in situ simulation to assess the clinical environment and identify latent safety threats (LSTs) related to the management of pediatric tracheostomy patients and (2) to analyze the effects of systems interventions and team factors on LSTs and simulation performance. METHODS:A multicenter, prospective study to assess LSTs related to pediatric tracheostomy care management was conducted in emergency departments (EDs) and intensive care units (ICUs). LSTs were identified through equipment checklists and in situ simulations via structured debriefs and blinded ratings of team performance. The research team and unit champions developed action plans with interventions to address each LST. Reassessment by equipment checklists and in situ simulations was repeated after 6 to 9 months. RESULTS:Forty-one LSTs were identified over 21 simulations, 24 in the preintervention group and 17 in the postintervention group. These included LSTs in access to equipment (ie, availability of suction catheters, lack of awareness of the location of tracheostomy tubes) and clinical knowledge gaps. Mean equipment checklist scores improved from 76% to 87%. Twenty-one unique teams (65 participants) participated in the simulations. The average simulation score was 6.19 out of 16 points. DISCUSSION:In situ simulation is feasible and effective as an assessment tool to identify latent safety threats and thus measure the system-level performance of a clinical care environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:In situ simulation can be used to identify and reassess latent safety threats related to pediatric tracheostomy management and thereby support quality improvement and educational initiatives.

With the ongoing development of the COVID-19 pandemic, research continues to emerge regarding the pathophysiology, characteristics, and treatment considerations for patients with COVID-19. No reports have highlighted the specific challenges posed in the management of pediatric patients with COVID-19 who present with complicated rhinosinusitis. In this report, we discuss our preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative multidisciplinary treatment strategy for these cases and provide two examples of complicated rhinosinusitis cases in COVID-19 patients, treated with two different approaches. Pearls, insights, and a brief review of the literature are discussed.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System is a standardized reporting system intended to risk stratify patients treated for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to investigate the positive predictive value of the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3 and 4 on posttreatment PET/CT in patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively identified patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma between 2006 and 2018. Patients whose posttreatment PET/CT scans were interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 (suspicious) or 4 (definitive recurrence) at the primary site, regional nodes, or at distant sites were included. The reference standard was histopathology or unequivocal imaging or clinical evidence of treatment failure. The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 and 4 posttreatment PET/CT were calculated. RESULTS:Seventy-two of 128 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 at the primary site, regional nodes, or distant sites were proved to have treatment failure at the suspicious sites, yielding an overall positive predictive value of 56% (95% CI, 48%-65%). The positive predictive values of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 by subsite were as follows: primary site, 56% (44/79); regional nodes, 65% (34/52); and distant sites, 79% (42/53). All 69 patients with posttreatment PET/CT interpreted as Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 had true treatment failure, yielding a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%): primary site, 100% (28/28); regional nodes, 100% (32/32); and distant sites, 100% (29/29). CONCLUSIONS:The positive predictive value of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 on posttreatment PET/CT is relatively low. Thus, Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 findings should be confirmed with tissue sampling before instituting new salvage treatment regimens to avoid unnecessary overtreatment and its associated toxicities. Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 reliably indicates recurrent disease.

The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created significant challenges to the delivery of care for patients with advanced head and neck cancer requiring multimodality therapy. Performing major head and neck ablative surgery and reconstruction is a particular concern given the extended duration and aerosolizing nature of these cases. In this manuscript, we describe our surgical approach to provide timely reconstructive care and minimize infectious risk to the providers, patients, and families.

PURPOSE:To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on the diagnosis and management of squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck (SCCUP). METHODS:The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2008 through 2019. Outcomes of interest included survival, local and regional disease control, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS:The literature search identified 100 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Four main clinical questions were addressed, which included subquestions on preoperative evaluations, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate pathology techniques, and adjuvant therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS:Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address preoperative evaluation for patients with a neck mass, surgical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, appropriate treatment options in unilateral versus bilateral SCCUP.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Multidisciplinary conferences (MDC) are an important component of head and neck oncologic care including diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Virtual MDC allows for improved collaboration between providers at distant sites and proper allocation of health care resources in a time of crisis. When approached systematically, a virtual MDC is feasible to design and implement in a large academic medical center with multiple satellite hospitals.