Sensitivity and specificity of the question "do you have any concerns regarding your mouth related to undergoing surgery?" for predicting perioperative oral health problems in patients with primary esophageal and lung cancer: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative oral management contributes to the prevention of dental/systemic complications. However, a professional dental checkup before surgery is generally not performed and relies on the patient's answer to a simple question by medical professionals other than dentists: "Do you have any concerns regarding your mouth related to undergoing surgery?" Here, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of this question for predicting perioperative oral health problems in patients with primary esophageal and primary lung cancer. METHODS: We performed an oral cavity check in all patients before scheduled surgery for primary esophageal and lung cancer. A total of 183 patients were enrolled (M, 112; F, 71; 24-88 years, median, 69 years), consisting of 61 with primary esophageal cancer (M, 46; F, 15; 24-85 years, median, 69 years) and 122 with primary lung cancer (M, 66; F; 56; 33-88 years, median, 69 years). All subjects provided a response to this question, and an oral cavity check was performed by dentists. The sensitivity and specificity of this question for detecting oral health problems were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting oral health problems were 0.263 and 0.898, respectively. There were no significant differences by sex or disease (primary esophageal or lung cancer). CONCLUSION: This simple question has low sensitivity but high specificity for detecting oral health problems. Although challenging to detect surgical patients with oral health problems by simply asking questions, the results indicated that patients with oral complaints are more likely to have problems during surgery.

Patients scheduled to undergo esophageal surgery should have the highest priority for perioperative oral management triage: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of patients visiting the dental office have a growing need for perioperative oral management (POM) to prevent postoperative complications. Therefore, it is necessary to determine which patients should receive preferential POM. This study investigated the dental status of patients scheduled to undergo surgery and addressed the priority for POM. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 150 patients who were scheduled to undergo surgery at the Department of Respiratory Surgery (DRS), Department of Neurological Surgery (DNS), Department of Gynecological Surgery (DGS), Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery (DBES), and Department of Esophageal Surgery (DES) managed by the Perioperative Management Center of Okayama University Hospital. We compared the general and dental status of patients among the five groups. RESULTS: The DES group had significantly fewer teeth than the DBES group (p = 0.012), more severe periodontitis than both the DBES (p = 0.005) and DNS groups (p = 0.020), and poorer molar occlusal support status than both the DBES (p = 0.002) and DGS groups (p = 0.041). The DES group exhibited a significantly higher median age (p = 0.002), a higher ratio of males (p < 0.001), a higher prevalence of malignant tumors (p < 0.001), and higher proportions of smokers (p < 0.001) and drinkers (p < 0.001) than the other groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent surgery at the DES had more dental problems than other surgery patients. Accordingly, these patients should be given the highest priority for POM triage.

Association of dental occlusal support with the Prognostic Nutritional Index in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: The Prognostic Nutritional Index is useful for predicting surgical risk and overall survival based on preoperative immunological and nutritional status in patients undergoing digestive organ cancer surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the Prognostic Nutritional Index and dental status in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included 73 patients who underwent resection of esophageal cancer (69 males, 4 females; age 36-83). General and dental status were evaluated. The Prognostic Nutritional Index was calculated based on the serum albumin concentration and the total lymphocyte count, and subjects were divided into two groups based on index scores: a higher group, characterized by scores ≥ 45 (n = 54); and a lower group, characterized by scores < 45 (n = 19). Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to compare between groups. RESULTS: Total protein, C-reactive protein, the number of sound and total decayed, missing and filled teeth, and the rate of patients with poor dental occlusal support showed significant differences between the lower and higher Prognostic Nutritional Index groups (p < 0.05). Stepwise logistic regression analysis by backward selection approach showed that low total protein, few sound teeth, and poor status of dental occlusal support were significantly associated with the lower Prognostic Nutritional Index (p = 0.007, 0.042, and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: Dental status, especially dental occlusal support and the number of sound teeth, showed a positive relationship with the Prognostic Nutritional Index in esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy.