Search

Background: In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients have continued to present with endocrine (surgical) pathology in an environment depleted of resources. This study investigated how the pandemic affected endocrine surgery practice. Methods: PanSurg-PREDICT is an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of emergency and elective surgical patients in secondary/tertiary care during the pandemic. PREDICT-Endocrine collected endocrine-specific data alongside demographics, COVID-19 and outcome data from 11–3-2020 to 13–9-2020. Results: A total of 380 endocrine surgery patients (19 centres, 12 countries) were analysed (224 thyroidectomies, 116 parathyroidectomies, 40 adrenalectomies). Ninety-seven percent were elective, and 63% needed surgery within 4 weeks. Eight percent were initially deferred but had surgery during the pandemic; less than 1% percent was deferred for more than 6 months. Decision-making was affected by capacity, COVID-19 status or the pandemic in 17%, 5% and 7% of cases. Indication was cancer/worrying lesion in 61% of thyroidectomies and 73% of adrenalectomies and calcium 2.80 mmol/l or greater in 50% of parathyroidectomies. COVID-19 status was unknown at presentation in 92% and remained unknown before surgery in 30%. Two-thirds were asked to self-isolate before surgery. There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission and no mortalities. Consultant-delivered care occurred in a majority (anaesthetist 96%, primary surgeon 76%). Post-operative vocal cord check was reported in only 14% of neck endocrine operations. Both of these observations are likely to reflect modification of practice due to the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected endocrine surgical decision-making, case mix and personnel delivering care. Significant variation was seen in COVID-19 risk mitigation measures. COVID-19-related complications were uncommon. This analysis demonstrates the safety of endocrine surgery during this pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study is the first to evaluate scar satisfaction and body image in thyroidectomy patients using validated assessment tools. Methods: A total of 123 thyroidectomy patients were recruited over 8 months. Both patients and clinicians completed assessment tools that included: the Manchester Scar Scale (to measure scar perception), Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (to assess body image), Body Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (to screen for body dysmorphic disorder) and EQ-5D (to measure life quality). A separate image panel comprising experts and nonexperts assessed 15 scar photographs. The results were analysed using non-parametric descriptive statistics. Results: Poor body image was associated with poor scar perception (p = 0.178, p = 0.05). Poor life quality correlated with poor scar perception (p = -0.292, p = 0.001). Scar length did not affect scar perception. Prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder among patients was found to be 8.94 per cent, which is higher than general population rates. Conclusion: Negative body image and life quality impact negatively upon scar perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of light technologies, allowing anatomical visualisation of otherwise hidden structures, led to significant advances in ENT in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Natural light from the sun, and from candles, was initially harnessed using mirrors. Later, the invention of limelight and electricity preceded the emergence of the modern-day endoscope, which, in tandem with the discovery of coherent fibre-optics in the 1950s, significantly expanded the surgical repertoire available to otolaryngologists. This study aimed to trace the rich history of ENT through the specialty's use of light. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses results of the departmental audit that was set up at Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust with the primary aim of assessing for differences in practice between grades of physicians. Topics covered include the assessment of the level of outpatient activity in the institution's ear, nose, throat (ENT) department, the identification of surgical listing rate and the evaluation of how completely the waiting list forms were being filled in.

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06171-8 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]