Faculty Bibliography

Recent molecular studies have described a number of abnormalities associated with the pathogenesis of thyroid carcinoma. These distinct molecular events are often associated with specific stages of tumor development and may serve as prognostic factors and therapeutic targets. A better understanding of the mechanisms involved in thyroid cancer pathogenesis, will hopefully help translate these discoveries to improved patient care.

Objective Malpractice litigation contributes to rising health care costs in the United States. The role of expert witness testimony has been controversial in the past, with medical professional societies issuing statements regarding ethical obligations of physicians. Our objectives were to examine the relative qualifications of expert witnesses testifying on behalf of plaintiffs vs defendants. Study Design and Setting Analysis of expert witness and physician demographic data available on several databases. Methods The Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, New York) was searched for otolaryngologist expert witness testimony. Length of experience, practice setting, and subspecialty training information were obtained from hospital, practice, departmental, and state licensing board sites. Scholarly impact was assessed using calculation of the h-index from the Scopus database. Results Plaintiff expert witnesses had significantly less experience than those testifying for defendants (31.8 vs 35.4 years, P = .047) and lower scholarly impact (h = 6.3 vs 10, P = .045). A significantly higher proportion of defendant witnesses were in academic practice (49.3% vs 31.7%, P = .042). No differences were detected in postresidency fellowship training patterns. Conclusion Upon comparison of otolaryngologist expert witnesses, practitioners testifying on behalf of plaintiffs had statistically fewer years of experience, had a lower scholarly impact, and were less likely to work in an academic setting. Otolaryngologists who repeatedly served as expert witnesses were more likely to be testifying on behalf of plaintiffs than defendants. Professional societies need to frequently update guidelines on expert witness testimony and address the ethical obligations of practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, as measured by academic rank and the h-index, a published, objective measure of research contributions that quantifies the number and significance of papers published by a given author. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists. METHODS: Faculty listings from academic otolaryngology departments were used to determine academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine h-index and publication range (in years) of these faculty members. In addition, 20 randomly chosen institutions were used to compare academic otolaryngologists to faculty members in other surgical specialties. RESULTS: Mean h-indices increased through the rank of professor. Among academic otolaryngologists, men had significantly higher h-indices than women, a finding also noted on examination of faculty members from other specialties. Men had higher research productivity rates at earlier points in their career than women did. The productivity rates of women increased and equaled or surpassed those of men later in their careers. Men had higher absolute h-index values at junior academic ranks. Women academic otolaryngologists of senior rank had higher absolute h-indices than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The h-index measures research significance in an objective manner and indicates that although men have higher overall research productivity in academic otolaryngology, women demonstrate a different productivity curve. Women produce less research output earlier in their careers than men do, but at senior levels, they equal or exceed the research productivity of men.

PURPOSE: Previous literature described how clinical fellowship training impacts scholarly production among academic otolaryngologists, finding that fellowship-trained practitioners had higher research productivity than their non-fellowship-trained peers, and head and neck (H&N) surgeons and otologists had the highest scholarly impact. In this analysis we investigate whether geographic differences in academic promotion and scholarly impact exist, and whether such differences are associated with emphasis on regional fellowship training patterns. METHODS: The Scopus database was used to determine scholarly impact (as measured by the h-index) of 1109 academic otolaryngologists from 97 departments. Online faculty listings were organized by fellowship training, academic rank, and location. RESULTS: Fellowship-trained practitioners had greater research productivity than non-fellowship-trained otolaryngologists (H=9.5+/-0.26 SEM vs. 6.5+/-0.43, p<0.001), a finding that persisted throughout except in the Mountain and East South Central Regions. H&N surgeons and otologists had the highest h-indices. Practitioners in the West had the highest h-index, with differences persisting upon examination of junior faculty. The West (62.1%) and Midwest (60.5%) had the highest proportions of senior faculty. Regional differences in scholarly impact and academic promotion were further noted upon organizing faculty by subspecialty fellowship training. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic differences in academic promotion and scholarly impact exist, most markedly among junior faculty. Practitioners in the West had high impact and were more represented at senior ranks. Upon examination by fellowship training status, fellowship-trained otolaryngologists had higher impact in most, but not all, geographic regions. Regional variations in promotion were noted upon organizing faculty by subspecialty, although association with scholarly impact differs by region.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of advanced endoscopic techniques on the current practice patterns in skull base surgery. METHODS: A 20-item written survey approved by the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) and North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) was conducted at the 22nd Annual NASBS meeting in Las Vegas, NV, from February 17 to 19, 2012. The target group included 212 practicing skull base surgeons. RESULTS: Seventy-nine physicians (37.3%) completed the survey. The subspecialty composition was 42 (53%) otolaryngologists and 35 (44%) neurosurgeons. The respondents represented all regions of the country, with most common being the North Central (24%) and Mid-Atlantic (23%) states. Open and endoscopic skull base techniques were used by 91% and 80%, respectively. During a typical year, the number of endoscopic skull base cases ranged between 20 and 50 in 32%, 50 to 100 in 13%, and >100 in 8%. Endoscopic pituitary surgery was performed by 95%, while transcribriform, transplanum, and transclival approaches were performed by 70.5%, 66%, and 66%, respectively. Wide variation in coding philosophy was noted, including use of unlisted neurosurgical (28%), open skull base (28%), unlisted endoscopic (24%), and sinus surgery (20%) codes. Only 30% of physicians reported adequate reimbursement in >/=50% of the performed cases. Overall, 87% were supportive of the creation of dedicated endoscopic skull base codes. CONCLUSION: The present survey attests to the widespread adaptation of endoscopic techniques in the management schema of skull base surgery. The wide variation in coding techniques and inadequate reimbursement suggests that future dialogue should also focus on developing consensus with respect to the coding and billing process.

PURPOSE: Medicolegal factors contribute to increasing healthcare costs through the direct costs of malpractice litigation, malpractice insurance premiums, and defensive medicine. Malpractice litigation trends are constantly changing as a result of technological innovations and changes in laws. In this study, we examine the most recent legal decisions related to Otolaryngology and characterize the factors responsible for determining legal responsibility. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) was used to search for jury verdicts since 2008 in Otolaryngology malpractice cases. The 44 cases included in this analysis were studied to determine the procedures most commonly litigated and progressing to trial, as well as the year, location, alleged cause of malpractice, specialty of co-defendants, and case outcomes. RESULTS: Out of the 44 cases included in this analysis, physicians were not found liable in 36 (81.8%) cases. Rhinologic procedures comprised 38.6% of cases litigated, and rulings were in physicians' favor in 66.7% of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) cases and all non-ESS rhinologic cases. A perceived lack of informed consent was noted in 34.1% of cases. The 8 jury awards averaged $940,000 (range, $148,000-$3,600,000). CONCLUSION: Otolaryngologists were not found liable in the majority of cases reviewed. Rhinologic surgeries were the most common procedures resulting in litigation. Adenotonsillectomies, thyroidectomies, and airway management are also well-represented. Perceived deficits in informed consent and misdiagnosis were noted in a considerable proportion of otolaryngologic malpractice cases resulting in jury decisions.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Malpractice litigation has increased in recent decades, contributing to higher health-care costs. Characterization of complications leading to litigation is of special interest to practitioners of facial plastic surgery procedures because of the higher proportion of elective cases relative to other subspecialties. In this analysis, we comprehensively examine malpractice litigation in facial plastic surgery procedures and characterize factors important in determining legal responsibility, as this information may be of great interest and use to practitioners in several specialties. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was examined for court records pertaining to facial plastic surgery procedures. The term "medical malpractice" was searched in combination with numerous procedures obtained from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. RESULTS: Of the 88 cases included, 62.5% were decided in the physician's favor, 9.1% were resolved with an out-of-court settlement, and 28.4% ended in a jury awarding damages for malpractice. The mean settlement was $577,437 and mean jury award was $352,341. The most litigated procedures were blepharoplasties and rhinoplasties. Alleged lack of informed consent was noted in 38.6% of cases; other common complaints were excessive scarring/disfigurement, functional considerations, and postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis characterized factors in determining legal responsibility in facial plastic surgery cases. Several factors were identified as potential targets for minimizing liability. Informed consent was the most reported entity in these malpractice suits. This finding emphasizes the importance of open communication between physicians and their patients regarding expectations as well as documentation of specific risks, benefits, and alternatives. Laryngoscope, 2012.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent septorhinoplasty (SRP) and functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has been a controversial topic in the literature over the last decade. Warnings and admonitions about the risks of performing these procedures together in a single surgery are both published and voiced at national meetings. Although pros and cons have been discussed in the literature, there have been no guidelines published based solely on a review of the level of evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and the Clinical Practice Guideline Manual, Conference on Guideline Standardization (COGS), and the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation (AGREE) instrument recommendations were followed. Study inclusion criteria were an adult population >18 years old, description or implication of study design available, concurrent FESS and SRP performed without additional procedures, and report of complications included in the study. RESULTS: We identified and evaluated the literature meeting those criteria: 11 retrospective studies. The literature was reviewed for both quality of research design as well as benefit and harm of the proposed interventions. CONCLUSION: If a patient is in need of FESS and SRP, either for functional or cosmetic reasons, and is found on the risk matrix to either have low or moderate risk, that patient is a good candidate for a concurrent procedure. If the patient is found to have higher risk, it is not an absolute contraindication, but the surgeon must use best clinical judgment when deciding to move forward and must counsel the patient preoperatively about possible increased risks.

Brain metastases in malignant melanoma carries a poor prognosis with minimal response to any therapy. The purpose of this pilot analysis was to find the effectiveness of vemurafenib, an oral BRAF inhibitor, and radiation therapy in V600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases. BRAF mutation status of the melanoma patients was determined by real-time PCR assay. Retrospective analysis was performed on twelve patients who had the mutation and were treated with either stereotactic radiosurgery or whole brain radiation therapy prior to or along with vemurafenib at a dose of 960 mg orally twice a day. Clinical and radiological responses, development of new brain metastases, overall survival and toxicity were assessed. Improvement in neurological symptoms was seen in 7/11 (64 %) following therapy. Radiographic responses were noted in 36/48 (75 %) of index lesions with 23 (48 %) complete responses and 13 (27 %) partial responses. Six month local control, freedom from new brain metastases and overall survival were 75, 57 and 92 %. Four patients had intra-tumoral bleed prior to therapy and two patients developed steroid dependence. One patient experienced radiation necrosis. This retrospective study suggests that melanoma patients with brain metastases harboring BRAF mutation appear to be a distinct sub-group with a favorable response to vemurafenib and radiation therapy and acceptable morbidity.