Search

Objectives/hypothesis For patients with submandibular sialolithiasis, there are many gland-preserving treatment options including sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy, however, requires expensive instrumentation with limited availability, which may not be required for routine cases. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients with submandibular sialolithiasis undergoing sialendoscopy versus those undergoing transoral incisional sialithotomy. Study design Longitudinal, prospective study of patient undergoing gland-preserving therapy for submandibular sialolithiasis. Methods The study was a prospective, nonrandomized trial of 30 patients with submandibular sialolithiasis who received gland-preserving treatment by either sialendoscopy-assisted techniques (Scope group; 14 patients) or transoral sialithotomy with or without dochoplasty (No Scope group; 16 patients). Factors analyzed between the two groups included age, race, gender, size of stone, location of stone, gland(s) involved, surgical method, and modified salivary Oral Health Impact Profile (sOHIP) scores before and after therapy. Results There were no significant differences between the Scope and No Scope groups regarding age, race, or gender. There was a significant difference in stone size between the groups, with the No Scope group having larger stones on average. Both treatments led to statistically significant symptomatic improvement in sOHIP scores. There was no statistically significant difference in salivary quality of life improvement between the Scope and No Scope groups (P = .33). Conclusions Sialendoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the management of salivary disorders, but is not associated with improved outcomes in gland-preserving treatments for routine submandibular sialolithiasis. Transoral stone removal alone may have equivalent symptomatic outcomes in the management of select sialoliths. Level of evidence III Laryngoscope, 2021.

Objectives Early onset sepsis (EOS) incidence has decreased since national guidelines and intrapartum prophylaxis were introduced. However, there has been a rising concern in antibiotic overtreatment for suspicion of EOS. A web-based EOS calculator has recently been used to evaluate the risk in newborns ≥34 weeks. Our purpose was to compare local strategies with the EOS calculator in our setting with an EOS incidence of 2/1000 live births. Methods A retrospective review of all newborns born ≥34 weeks from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017 was completed after receiving IRB approval. We applied the calculator to those eligible using an EOS incidence of 0.6/1000 and 2/1000 live births and divided the patients into four cohorts. The rate of antibiotic use was compared between local evidence-based guidelines and the EOS calculator. Results Of the 1367 newborns included in the study, 679 received antibiotics. Over the 2 years, antibiotic utilization decreased by 38%. The calculator would have recommended antibiotics for 468 patients (31% decrease) for an EOS incidence of 0.6/1000, but with a 2/1000 incidence rate the calculator recommended antibiotics for 673 patients (1% decrease). Conclusions The EOS calculator has been helpful in optimizing antibiotic use, but its use may result in suboptimal treatment without the knowledge of local EOS incidence. Our local antibiotic stewardship guidelines seemed to be comparable to the EOS calculator, especially by the last 6 months of the study period.