Search

Background: The extent of postoperative pain following transoral thyroidectomy is not well-understood and remains a subject of debate. This study aims to analyze and compare postoperative pain levels between patients undergoing transoral and conventional transcervical thyroidectomy. Methods: A prospective evaluation on postoperative pain was conducted in 310 patients undergoing conventional thyroidectomy and 194 undergoing transoral thyroidectomy. Pain levels were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS, ranging from 0 to 10) through preoperative and postoperative questionnaires at specified time points: 1, 3, and 6 days, and 1 and 3 months following surgery. Propensity score-matched analysis was carried out based on six covariates: sex, age, body mass index, extent of thyroidectomy, tumor size, and central neck dissection. Results: After propensity score matching based on the six covariates, 121 patient pairs were identified from each group. Within this matched cohort, postoperative pain scores significantly worsened 1 day after surgery but showed progressive recovery up to 3 months post-surgery in both groups. The transoral group exhibited higher postoperative pain scores than the conventional group from day 1 (4.43 ± 2.6 vs. 3.11 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) to day 6 (1.76 ± 1.9 vs. 1.13 ± 1.6, p = 0.016) post-surgery, with no significant difference noted at 1 month. Among transoral procedures, pain scores were significantly higher for the endoscopic approach compared to the robotic approach on days 1 (5.52 ± 2.3 vs. 4.29 ± 2.3, p = 0.028) and 3 (3.52 ± 2.5 vs. 2.64 ± 2.0, p = 0.047) post-surgery. Conclusions: Postoperative pain was significantly higher in transoral thyroidectomy compared to conventional thyroidectomy up to 6 days post-surgery. Within the transoral group, the robotic procedure resulted in lower pain levels than the endoscopic approach during the early postoperative period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of cefetamet pivoxil for the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in Korean patients compared to treatment with cefdinir. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, randomized double-blind, comparative study was conducted by the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery at 17 hospitals or universities in the Republic of Korea from March 2017 to April 2019. A total of 309 patients were screened and 249 patients participated in the study. Results: Treatment with cefetamet pivoxil for 2 weeks showed 82.4% clinical cure and improvement rates in patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis compared to 84.68% in those taking cefdinir for 2 weeks, showing that cefetamet pivoxil administered twice a day for 2 weeks was as effective as cefdinir 3 times a day for 2 weeks for the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. The overall adverse reaction rates of both drugs were 10.56% in the cefetamet pivoxil group and 15.49% in the cefdinir group, without serious adverse events or drug reactions. Conclusions: Cefetamet pivoxil twice a day was as efficacious and safe as cefdinir 3 times a day for the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, which suggested that cefetamet pivoxil may be a suitable alternative to cefdinir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]