RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment causes dysphagia, which may lead to aspiration pneumonia (AP). Thickened fluids are widely used to prevent aspiration in patients with dysphagia; however, there is little evidence that they can prevent AP. This study aimed to clarify the differences between restriction of oral intake of fluids (R), only thickened fluids (TF), and no restriction of fluids (NR) for AP in patients with dysphagia after HNC treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 654 patients with dysphagia after HNC surgery between 2012 and 2021. Of these, 255 had some restriction of fluids. The development of possible AP and administration of antibacterial drugs were used as outcomes. Multivariate linear regression and propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 64 ± 13, 67 ± 11, and 68 ± 10 years, while the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity score 3-4 was 2.8%, 27.5, and 53.3%% water in NR, TF, and R groups, respectively. AP was diagnosed or suspected after starting oral intake in 37 (9.3%), 11 patients (15.9%), and 45 (17.6%) and antibacterial drugs were administered in 11 (2.8%), 7 patients (10.1%), and 25 (9.8%) in NR, TF, and R groups, respectively. R and TF had significant negative impacts on AP. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid restrictions may not reduce the risk of AP or affect the administration of antibacterial drugs. Medical staff should bear in mind that fluid restrictions do not necessarily prevent AP in patients with HNC.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos de Deglución , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello , Neumonía por Aspiración , Humanos , Trastornos de Deglución/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Deglución , Neumonía por Aspiración/prevención & control , Neumonía por Aspiración/complicaciones , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello/cirugía , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello/complicacionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In previous our retrospective study, we concluded that administered fluid volume, duration of operation, operative procedures and anesthetic techniques were the major factors of postoperative urinary retention. However, the administered fluid volume, age, types and duration of the operation confined to hemorrhoidectomy was questioned as a precipitating factor. The high retention rate in spinal anesthesia is also questioned. METHODS: We investigated these possible precipitating factors of urinary retention in healthy patients (n=154) undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. The patients were randomly divided into three different anesthetic techniques: caudal (2% lidocaine 300 mg with 1 : 200,000 epinephrine), spinal (0.5% tetracaine 5 mg with epinephrine 0.1 mg or 5% lidocaine 40 mg) and general (enflurane, N2O, vecuronium). Urinary retentin was searched according to above factors following surgery. RESULTS: The overall urinary retention rate was 46.1%. The retention rate in patients with spinal anesthesia was higher than that in those with other anesthetic techniques (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between patients with lidocaine and tetracaine spinal anesthesia in urinary retention rate. The administered fluid volume in patients with urinary retention was significantly higher than that of patients without retention (p<0.05). Age, duration and types of hemorrhoidectomy did not significantly affect urinary retention rate. CONCLUSIONS: Restriction of fluid administration and avoidance of spinal anesthesia are necessary in reducing postoperative urinary retention following hemorrhoidectomy.