Using Active-Phonation Cone-Beam Computed Tomography to Evaluate Pediatric Patients With Suspected Velopharyngeal Dysfunction, a Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT: Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is described as the incomplete closure of the velopharyngeal port during a speech production. Nasopharyngoscopy and/or multiplanar videofluoroscopy have been utilized for decades to assess the degree and nature of the dysfunction. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is presented as an additional diagnostic tool, allowing for clear visualization of the affected structures and the ability to obtain accurate measurements (within 100 microns) of the involved anatomy and defect. This prospective pilot study aims to test the feasibility of using "active-phonation" CBCT to assess suspected VPD in the pediatric and young adult populations and compare the results to nasopharyngoscopy; the current standards of care.Six patients, ages 6 to 26 years, with suspected VPD, defined as the inability to completely close off the nasal airway during an oral speech, seen at an urban medical outpatient craniofacial care center, served as subjects for this pilot study. Each patient received a comprehensive speech evaluation and participated in both active-phonation CBCT and nasopharyngoscopy.Both active-phonation CBCT and nasopharyngoscopy revealed incomplete closure of the velopharyngeal port during a speech in all 6 patients (100%). Two patients (33%) were unable to tolerate a complete nasendoscopic examination. There was no difference between CBCT or nasopharyngoscopy in determining the presence of VPD and noting the severity on a 3-point scale, (P = 0.61) as judged by 4 experienced clinicians.As a functional imaging modality, active-phonation CBCT is a useful adjunct tool for accurate diagnosis of VPD and may be more easily tolerated during a thorough VPD assessment than nasopharyngoscopy. It also provides quantitative data that is useful to augment treatment optimization and surgical planning in this population. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis at the time of intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: is there a role?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (BV) among women attending outpatient gynaecology clinics for insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD); and to describe any differences between BV-positive and BV-negative women at one month after insertion with respect to four primary clinical outcomes: expulsion of IUD, pain, fever > 38 ºC, and heavy bleeding. METHODS: We carried out an observational prevalence study between March 2008 and March 2009. Seventy women were each followed for one month. Vaginal cultures for BV were obtained before and at one month after IUD insertion, and women were assessed for complications at one month after insertion. Thirty-eight women had a copper IUD (Cu-IUD) inserted and 32 had a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (LNG-IUD) inserted. Bacterial vaginosis was diagnosed using Nugent's scoring and Gram stain evaluation of the cultures. Frequency distributions, Student t test, and Fisher exact test of independence were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The prevalence of BV was 7.1%. Five women were found to be BV positive at the time of IUD insertion, and none experienced any clinical complications. One BV-negative patient developed a tubo-ovarian abscess three months after LNG-IUD insertion, and another BV-negative patient reported persistent, thick vaginal discharge after Cu-IUD insertion. Of 43 BV-negative patients who had repeat cultures performed at their one-month follow-up visit, four (9.3%) shifted from having normal flora to being BV positive. We found no significant relationship between a patient's BV status and any clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: The incidence of BV in this study was lower than that described in other populations. No clinical complications occurred among the BV-positive women. Screening for BV prior to IUD insertion is neither currently recommended, nor supported by our study findings.

Cecal perforation due to paralytic ileus following primary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Reports of cecal perforation complicating a Caesarean section postoperatively are very uncommon. Cecal perforations often are due to an antecedent bowel obstruction. CASE: A 39-year-old primigravid woman presented with obstructed labour at a cervical dilatation of 6 cm. An uncomplicated Caesarean section was performed. Postoperatively, the patient developed signs consistent with a bowel obstruction and was managed conservatively. A perforated viscus was confirmed via imaging on the third and fourth postoperative days. The patient underwent laparotomy with resection of a perforated cecum, and she recovered well. CONCLUSION: Although uncommon after a Caesarean section, cecal perforation should be suspected if a patient presents with symptoms of a prolonged bowel obstruction. Early identification and prompt imaging are the mainstays of treatment for these patients.