ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction At the time of diagnosis, treatment strategies for cancer are largely based upon clinical staging. However, discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging has been reported. Objective To assess the rate of staging discrepancy in Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (LHSCC), the potential influence of higher interval of time from diagnosis to primary surgical treatment, and whether this has any impact on survival outcomes. Methods Retrospective study of patients with LHSCC proposed for primary surgical treatment. Results The study population included 125 Caucasian patients with LHSCC. The level of agreement between clinical and pathological tumor staging was moderate (Cohen's Kappa: 0.400; p < 0.001) and similar result was found for node staging (Cohen' Kappa: 0.520; p < 0.001). The mean time between diagnosis and surgical treatment was 26.66 days and no statistically significant influence was found with staging discrepancy. The sample presented a 5-year Overall Survival (OS) of 58.2% and a Disease-specific survival (DSS) of 72.6%. No statistically significant impact of staging discrepancy on survival was found. Conclusion For advanced LHSCC, based on the findings of physical examination, endoscopy and imaging, is possible to achieve a moderate accuracy between clinical and pathological staging which allows a reliable counselling and treatment planning. Interval of time under 3-4 weeks between diagnosis and surgical treatment does not influence the rate of discrepancy. However, almost 30% of staging discrepancy is expected due to false negatives of imaging and limitations of physical exams.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: The evaluation of surgical outcomes measured by patient satisfaction or quality of life is very important, especially in plastic surgery. There is increasing interest in self-reporting outcomes evaluation in plastic surgery. Objective: The aim of this study was to perform the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of "The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty" from English to Portuguese. Methods: Retrospective study involving 50 patients undergoing to rhinoplasty comparing the preoperative period with the current postoperative situation (minimum 6 months and maximum 24 months postoperatively). Statistical analysis was performed to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: No patients received a negative score on the visual analogue scale comparing preoperative and postoperative appearance. The postoperative improvement on the visual analogue scale revealed a Gaussian curve of normal distribution with a mean improvement of 4.44 points. The test-retest reliability showed a positive correlation between the postoperative response and the same questionnaire repeated ninety-six hours later. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha value: Preoperative = 0.88; Postoperative = 0.86). The authors observed a significant improvement in response for all individual questions in the postoperative phase as compared with preoperative situation (t-student test - p < 0.05). Conclusion: The Portuguese version of "The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty" is a valid instrument to assess patients' outcomes following rhinoplasty surgery.
Resumo Introdução: A avaliação do resultado cirúrgico medido pela satisfação do paciente ou qualidade de vida é muito importante, especialmente na cirurgia plástica, uma especialidade na qual há um crescente interesse na avaliação de resultados por auto‐relato. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi realizar a tradução, a adaptação transcultural e a validação do questionário "The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty", do inglês para português. Método: Estudo retrospectivo envolvendo 50 pacientes submetidos a rinoplastia comparando o período pré‐operatório com a situação atual (mínimo de 6 meses e máximo de 24 meses de pós‐operatório). A análise estatística foi realizada para avaliar a consistência interna, confiabilidade teste‐reteste, validade e capacidade de resposta. Resultados: Nenhum paciente recebeu pontuação negativa na escala visual analógica ao comparar a aparência pré‐ e pós‐operatória. A melhora pós‐operatória na escala visual analógica revelou uma curva gaussiana de distribuição normal, com melhora média de 4,44 pontos. A confiabilidade teste‐reteste mostrou uma correlação positiva entre a resposta pós‐operatória e o mesmo questionário repetido noventa e seis horas depois. A consistência interna foi alta (valor do alfa de Cronbach: pré‐operatório = 0,88; pós‐operatório = 0,86). Os autores observaram uma melhora significante nas respostas para todas as questões individuais na fase pós‐operatória em comparação com a situação pré‐operatória (teste t de Student - p < 0,05). Conclusão: A versão em português do "The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty" é um instrumento válido para avaliar os resultados do paciente após a cirurgia de rinoplastia.