ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Surgical voice restoration (SVR) is associated with improved patient quality of life following laryngectomy. This study aims to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with SVR and analyse the complications in this cohort of patients. METHOD: A retrospective review of all patients with SVR at a single tertiary ear, nose, and throat (ENT) unit in the UK for 12 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, with comparison to the preceding 12 months. A survey was also administered to assess patients' experiences during the pandemic. RESULT: Thirty-six patients were included in this study. During the pandemic period, 19.5% (n = 7) patients had significant complications, with five patients needing surgery to restore speech. In the 12 months pre-pandemic, 13.5% (n = 5) had significant complications, although none required surgery to restore speech. Six patients (19.4%) felt these complications were avoidable in normal circumstances. Further, 30.5% (n = 11) of patients reported a delay in seeking medical attention due to concerns about their vulnerability to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on many patients with SVR. This has resulted in a large proportion of patients experiencing delayed care, a loss of voice, a need for further surgical intervention, and negative impacts on their quality of life.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To understand if medical students consider rarer, but highly fatal conditions, such as acute aortic dissection, when assessing chest pain. METHODS: An online virtual clinical case (in two 'stages') was distributed to medical students. Stage one presented a chest pain scenario, asking participants to give relevant questions, clinical findings, investigations, and differential diagnoses. In the second stage, students were given a detailed case, populated with the aortic dissection 'red flags' and asked to re-evaluate their differential diagnosis and investigations. A total of 113 students in their final two years of study, across six United Kingdom (UK) medical schools, were accepted into the study. RESULTS: During stage one, students were able to assess chest pain with radiation (93%), character (83%), and onset (89%), which were asked commonly. However, students failed to enquire on severity (38%) and important risk factors such as connective tissue disorders (4%) and hypertension (46%), or clinical signs such as blood pressure differences (5%). Myocardial infarction (97%) and pulmonary embolism (78%) were the most considered differentials with acute aortic dissection only considered by 31%. However, in stage two, 73% recognised the acute aortic dissection and 76% were able to request a CT thorax. CONCLUSIONS: Students effectively consider myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism when assessing chest pain, but often fail to examine acute aortic dissection. This could lead to delayed treatment of a cataclysmic event and may be due to a deficiency in diagnostic synthesis rather than a lack of knowledge. More can be done to ensure these conditions form part of their diagnostic workup.
ABSTRACT
Epistaxis is commonly seen as an acute presentation to the emergency department. The level of severity can range from a minor ooze to a life-threatening bleed. The initial management is often the responsibility of junior doctors working in otolaryngology or the emergency department, so they must be familiar with the initial steps in treating this often distressing condition. The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated matters further as much of the management takes place in the upper airway. This article outlines the key considerations in the management of epistaxis, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
