Antoniu-Oreste Gostian

Purpose To improve pain management after tonsillectomy (TE) by comparing individual analgesic management by demand versus a fixed-scheduled analgesic treatment protocol in a prospective trial. Patients and Methods Forty consecutive patients received individual pain treatment by demand (control group) followed by 40 patients who were treated by a fixed-scheduled four-staged escalating analgesic protocol (intervention group) after TE. Minimum and maximum pain as well as pain on ambulation (NRS 0-10) on the first postoperative day were defined as primary objectives. Secondary endpoints comprised the analgesic score, treatment-related side effects/pain-associated impairments, wish for more pain medication, and patient satisfaction. Patients were surveyed using the standardized and validated “Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment” (QUIPS) questionnaire. Results Patients of the control group reported comparable minimum (2.03 ± 1.42 vs 2.38 ± 1.79, P = 0.337, r = 0.110) and maximum pain (6.65 ± 2.10 vs 6.93 ± 1.86, P = 0.536, r = 0.07) and pain on ambulation (4.73 ± 2.26 vs 5.18 ± 2.19, P = 0.370, r = 0.10) compared to the intervention group. Patients in both groups were comparably well satisfied with the pain treatment (7.53 ± 2.40 vs 7.73 ± 2.30, P = 0.704, r = 0.04), experienced similar side effects and functional impairments ( P > 0.050, Φ < 0.3), and did not ask for much more analgesic medication ( P = 0.152, Φ = 0.160). Conclusion Pain control following TE was not distinctly affected by applying a fixed-scheduled analgesic treatment protocol compared to individual analgesic therapy. In conclusion, analgesic treatment after TE remains unsatisfying. Consequently, further efforts are needed to achieve a standardized and effective approach to the underlying pathophysiological causes of pain following TE.

The aim of this study was to search for associations between an electrodiagnostically abnormal but clinically normal facial nerve before parotidectomy and the intraoperative findings, as well as the postoperative facial nerve function. The records of all patients treated for parotid tumors between 2002 and 2021 with a preoperative House–Brackmann score of grade I but an abnormal electrophysiologic finding were studied retrospectively. A total of 285 patients were included in this study, and 222 patients had a benign lesion (77.9%), whereas 63 cases had a malignant tumor (22.1%). Electroneurographic facial nerve involvement was associated with nerve displacement in 185 cases (64.9%) and infiltration in 17 cases (6%). In 83 cases (29.1%), no tumor–nerve interface could be detected intraoperatively. An electroneurographic signal was absent despite supramaximal stimulation in 6/17 cases with nerve infiltration and in 17/268 cases without nerve infiltration (p < 0.001). The electrophysiologic involvement of a normal facial nerve is not pathognomonic for a malignancy (22%), but it presents a rather rare (~6%) sign of a “true” nerve infiltration and could also appear in tumors without any contact with the facial nerve (~29%). Of our cases, two thirds of those with an anatomic nerve preservation and facial palsy had already directly and postoperatively recovered to a major extent in the midterm.