Search

Objective: One minute of operating room (OR) time costs $36 to 37. However, ORs are notoriously inefficient. There is growing literature on improving OR efficiency, but no formal review of this topic within otolaryngology has been performed. This study reviews and synthesizes the current literature on improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, preprints.org, and medRxiv were searched on November 4, 2022., Review Methods: Published English studies were included if they reported on metrics for improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology. There were no publication date restrictions. Articles were screened by 2 reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis reporting for scoping reviews was followed., Results: The search yielded 9316 no-duplicate articles; 129 articles were included. Most of the studies reported on head and neck procedures (n = 52/129). The main tactics included surgical considerations: hemostatic devices, techniques, and team/simultaneous approaches; anesthetic considerations: local anesthetic and laryngeal mask airways; procedure location considerations: procedures outside of the OR and remote technologies; standardization: equipment, checklists, and personnel; scheduling considerations: use of machine learning for booking, considering patient/surgeon factors, and utilizing dedicated OR time/multidisciplinary teams for on-call cases., Conclusion: The current literature brings to attention numerous strategies for improving OR efficiency within otolaryngology. Applying these strategies and implementing novel techniques to manage surgical cases may assist in offloading overloaded health care systems and improving access to care while facilitating patient safety and outcomes. Anticipated barriers to implementation include resistance to change, funding, and the current strain on health care systems and providers., (© 2024 The Authors. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Objective: To compare the postoperative complications of the fibular free flap (FFF), scapula free flap (SFF), and osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap (OCRFFF) following osseous reconstruction in the head and neck., Data Sources: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane., Review Methods: A literature search and systematic review were performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using a random effects model to compare operative time and postoperative complications., Results: The systematic review identified 26 studies comparing at least 1 variable of interest. The odds ratio estimates favored reduced rates of flap failure with the OCRFFF when compared to FFF (0.7, confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.11, P < .001), while FFF and SFF were similar. The mean difference estimates for operative time significantly favored FFF over SFF (-51.04 minutes, CI: -92.73 to -9.35, P = .016) and OCRFFF over FFF (66.77 minutes, CI: 52.74-80.8, P < .001). The FFF was more prone to hardware exposure, longer hospital stays, and donor site complications. Recipient wound complications and fistula rates were similar for all flap types., Conclusion: Depending on the clinical context, the OCRFFF, FFF, and SFF are all robust options for reconstruction in the head and neck. The OCRFFF is associated with a reduced rate of flap failure and shorter operative times. The SFF requires longer operative times, although significant variation was observed between institutions. The FFF has broad reconstructive indications but is associated with more perioperative and long-term complications., (© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Objective: Access to and use of physician services is limited for those experiencing homelessness. Homelessness may predispose patients to several Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) health conditions and barriers to care may leave these unaddressed. The aim of this review was to synthesize the literature on OHNS health needs and community-based interventions for patients experiencing homelessness., Data Sources: English literature was searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL., Review Methods: Studies were included if they reported on OHNS-related conditions in patients experiencing homelessness and/or interventions related to providing OHNS care to this patient population., Results: Twelve hundred and one articles were screened, and 12 articles were included. Most studies reported on otologic conditions (n = 8) and head and neck-related conditions (n = 6). Nasal trauma, chronic rhinosinusitis, dysphonia, hearing loss, and cancerous/precancerous head and neck lesions were common OHNS conditions reported in this patient population. Identified barriers to care included lack of transportation, financial considerations, and lower health literacy. Three articles on community-based interventions were included. Most of these interventions were single visits to shelters, and ensuring adequate follow-up was identified as a challenge., Conclusion: The current literature brings attention to certain OHNS diseases that are prevalent in this unique patient population and identifies unique barriers these patients experience when accessing care. Future studies should focus on further delineating the impact of OHNS diseases in patients experiencing homelessness and screening interventions that can be employed to mitigate the impact of diseases of the head and neck., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)