Search

Background The medical community has been deeply involved in fighting the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and, as a consequence, the care of non-COVID-19 patients has been impacted. However, the treatment of head and neck cancer patients is not deferrable, and an integrated strategy is required. The aim of the current article is to present the experience in the management of head and neck patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at the research hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”. This review contains replicable and widely usable instructions on how to avoid delays in the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck tumors and to ensure a gradual return to elective procedures. Main text The Head and Neck Department of the research hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” includes an Otolaryngology and a Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, both of which deal with the diagnosis and treatment of benign and malignant pathologies of the head and neck, as well as urgent/emergent consultations and surgical procedures that necessitate time sensitive operative management, such as cochlear implantation (CI). Given these premises and the complexity of the Department, the “COVID-19 organizing protocol” of the research hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” was divided into two phases in accordance with the different stages of the pandemic and the priority of treatment. Special attention was given to the medical surveillance of health care workers and hospitalized patients, to the organization of the outpatient clinic and the operating setting as well as to the implementation of telehealth systems. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic is going to be a long-term situation with lasting effects on the public health and the entire society. Therefore, an efficient health care system has to adopt a double strategy: always being ready for a “new wave” of the pandemic and not forgetting non-COVID-19 patients, among whom head and neck cancer patients represent a priority. More than 1 year since the first outbreak in Wuhan, this review offers a unique and helpful perspective that incorporates awareness of the disease.

Peripheral neuropathies are a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting peripheral nerves. The causes are multiple: hereditary, metabolic, infectious, inflammatory, toxic, traumatic. The temporal profile includes acute, subacute and chronic conditions. The majority of peripheral neuropathies cause mainly muscle weakness and sensory loss, positive sensory symptoms and sometimes pain. When pain is present, however, it is usually extremely intense and among the most disabling symptoms for the patients. In addition, the neurological origin of the pain is often missed and patients receive inadequate or delayed specific treatment. Independently of the disease causing the peripheral nerve injury, pain originating from axonal pathology or ganglionopathy privileges neuropathies affecting smaller fibres, a clinical observation that points towards abnormal activity within nociceptive afferents as a main generator of pain. Natural activation of blood vessels or perineurial nociceptive network by pathology also causes intense pain. Pain of this kind, i.e. nerve trunk pain, is among the heralding symptoms of inflammatory or ischemic mononeuropathy and for its intensity represents itself a medical emergency. Neuropathic pain quality rekindles the psychophysical experience of peripheral nerves intraneural microstimulation i.e. a combination of large and small fibres sensation temporally distorted compared to physiological perception evoked by natural stimuli. Pins and needles, burning, cramping mixed with numbness, and tingling are the wording most used by patients. Nociceptive pain instead is most often described as aching, deep and dull. Good command of peripheral nerve anatomy and pathophysiology allows timely recognition of the different pain components and targeted treatment, selected according to intensity, type and temporal profile of the pain.

It is estimated that at least one out of four patients with cancer complains of pain originating from nerve injury. Nerve injury may result from direct invasion/compression by tumour, or by remote effect of the cancer such as paraneoplastic polyneuropathy. In many cases, the nerve injury is caused by medical therapy, or surgical interventions. Pain generated by drugs or medical acts is called iatrogenic. A common iatrogenic neuralgia is chemotherapy induced painful polyneuropathy. This neuropathy typically affects mostly the small myelinated and unmyelinated nerve fibres. Surgical and anaesthesiological interventions also frequently cause direct nerve stretch or section. Some interventions, particularly those requiring extended resection, have a higher incidence of painful sequelae. Limb and colon amputation, nerve dissection, mastectomy and thoracotomy are the most common interventions for cancer known to cause nerve injury. As pain clinicians, we focus attention on the painful consequences of surgical interventions because there is evidence that a more accurate surgical approach and possibly a prophylactic prevention of the neuralgia may reduce the painful sequelae of nerve injury.

Four patients with pancoast's syndrome had burning pain in the axilla and abnormal sensation in the intercostobrachial nerve territory. The intercostobrachial nerve is the first component of the brachial plexus to be invaded by lung tumours.

Recent studies have described abnormalities of visual evoked potentials and pattern electroretinography in diabetics without retinopathy. The visual contrast sensitivity, determined by psychophysical tests, has proved to be abnormal in diabetic patients with and without clinical retinopathy. In this study we evaluated contrast sensitivity function using both electrophysiologic and psychophysical methods. The objective assessment of functional visual contrast sensitivity was superior to psychophysical evaluation in the detection of contrast sensitivity alterations. No relationships were found between contrast sensitivity dysfunction and abnormalities of pattern electroretinography or fluorescein angiography. Our data suggest that functional visual deficits might precede background retinopathy and that the involvement of foveal function is early and very frequent in diabetic patients, even if they have normal visual acuity.