To compare oral function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients reconstructed with either a reconstruction plate or a free vascularized bone flap with or without 3D planning.Patients from the Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, and Radboud University Medical Center were included. This cross-sectional study assessed objective masticatory performance with the mixing ability test (mixing ability index [MAI]), maximum bite force, maximum mouth opening, and HRQoL. Differences between groups were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables.Six patients with digitally planned resections and reconstructions were included. For comparison, five patients treated with freehand bone reconstruction and four patients treated with plate reconstruction were also included. Mixing ability was superior in 3D-planned reconstructions (MAI: 20.7 ± 6.7) compared to plate reconstructions (MAI: 30.0 ± 0.1, P = .017) and freehand reconstructions (MAI: 29.5 ± 1.1, P = .017). Maximum mouth opening, bite force, and HRQoL differences did not reach statistical significance.This study indicated a possible benefit to masticatory performance of adequate surgical planning for one-phase reconstruction using 3D technology. A larger prospective study is necessary to gain more evidence regarding this finding.
Abstract Background Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. Objective Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. Methods A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi‐structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? Results All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self‐reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient‐reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan‐Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1‐4 times a year sent by e‐mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. Conclusions This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.
Routine dental radiographic examination in a 16-year-old girl revealed the presence of 3 well-defined radiolucent cystlike structures in the mandible. After clinical and radiological examination, a multiple traumatic bone cyst was diagnosed. Surgical exploration confirmed the diagnosis. Curettage of the lesions was performed. Fifteen months later, a panoramic radiograph showed almost complete ossification.
<div>Abstract<p>Comorbidities can have major implications for cancer care, as they might impact the timing of cancer diagnosis, compromise optimal care, affect treatment outcomes, and increase healthcare costs. Thus, it is important to comprehensively evaluate cancer comorbidities and examine trends over time. Here, we performed a systematic literature review on the prevalence and types of comorbidities for the five most common forms of cancer. Observational studies from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published between 1990 and 2020 in English or Dutch that used routinely collected data from a representative population were included. The search yielded 3,070 articles, of which, 161 were eligible for data analyses. Multilevel analyses were performed to evaluate determinants of variation in comorbidity prevalence and trends over time. The weighted average comorbidity prevalence was 33.4%, and comorbidities were the most common in lung cancer (46.7%) and colorectal cancer (40.0%), followed by prostate cancer (28.5%), melanoma cancer (28.3%), and breast cancer (22.4%). The most common types of comorbidities were hypertension (29.7%), pulmonary diseases (15.9%), and diabetes (13.5%). After adjusting for gender, type of comorbidity index, age, data source (patient records vs. claims), and country, a significant increase in comorbidities of 0.54% per year was observed. Overall, a large and increasing proportion of the oncologic population is dealing with comorbidities, which could be used to inform and adapt treatment options to improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.</p>Significance:<p>Comorbidities are frequent and increasing in patients with cancer, emphasizing the importance of exploring optimal ways for uniform comorbidity registration and incorporating comorbidity management into cancer care.</p></div>
Background: Adequate provider-patient communication is viewed as an important aspect of good quality (cancer) care, supports patients' stress control, and can positively influence health outcomes. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe nurse-patient communication in 2 consecutive follow-up consultations after head and neck cancer, with or without a partner present. Methods: This was a descriptive observational study of 17 video-recorded, coded, and analyzed consultations of 10 head and neck cancer patients and 6 partners. Results: Nurses adequately responded to about 25% of patients' and partners' emotional cues. In almost 75%, nurses responded to cues using distancing behaviors. The majority of informational questions of both patients and partners were adequately answered. Comparison of consecutive visits showed small differences for patients' and partners' cue-emission and for nurses' responsive behaviors between visits 1 and 2. Conclusion: Nurses adequately responded to informational questions from patients and partners. However, they seemed to be less observant of and able to address emotional cues. Communication on nurse-patient-partner interaction deserves further research in a much larger sample and over a longer time period. Implication for Practice: Nurses' awareness of the importance of adequate cue responding is vital, as is the choice to "unlearn" the predominant distancing behaviors. The needs and the role of the patients' partner in consultations and managing consultations require further attention in training and professional practice.
