Methods: A parallel randomised controlled single blinded study was conducted with a sample size of 70 patients who were randomised into two groups. One group underwent MRM using ultrasonic dissector (Group A) and the other one using electrocautery (Group B). Intra- and post-operative outcomes were compared.
Results: Group A had an average operating time of 30.86 min, which was statistically less than that of Group B. The mean mop count and the daily drain output in Group A were less as compared to Group B and the differences were statistically significant. Drain was removed early in Group A as compared to Group B. However, post-operative pain scores and seroma formation were not statistically significant among the two groups.
Conclusion: Ultrasonic dissector group had significantly lesser intra-operative bleeding, operating time and post-operative drain output when compared to electrocautery group. However, the two groups had no significant difference in post-operative pain scores and seroma formation.
Case Report: We report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented to us with a chief complaint of recurrent right-sided epistaxis and nasal blockage for the past 4 months, which was progressively worsening. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of a REAH instead of a sinonasal malignancy. The tumor was surgically excised from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery under endoscopic guidance. The patient was then carefully followed-up after surgery, and the wound was successfully healed 3 months after the initial surgery. There was no evidence of recurrence 6 months after the initial surgery.
Conclusion: This case demonstrates the rare presentation of a REAH, which had arisen from the lateral nasal wall. Clinically, it is difficult to distinguish a REAH from a more notorious mass such as a sinonasal malignancy. Therefore, biopsy is mandatory in all cases of lateral nasal mass in order to rule out malignancy before confirming nasal REAH. Fortunately, as seen in this case, a lateral nasal REAH, once diagnosed, can be safely and easily removed from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery with good surgical outcomes and a low rate of recurrence.
Objective: To provide an update on the current understanding, evaluation, and management of penile warts.
Methods: A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key terms 'penile warts' and 'genital warts'. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews.
Results: Penile warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), notably HPV-6 and HPV-11. Penile warts typically present as asymptomatic papules or plaques. Lesions may be filiform, exophytic, papillomatous, verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cerebriform, fungating, or cauliflower-like. Approximately one-third of penile warts regress without treatment and the average duration prior to resolution is approximately 9 months. Active treatment is preferable to watchful observation to speed up clearance of the lesions and to assuage fears of transmission and autoinoculation. Patient-administered therapies include podofilox (0.5%) solution or gel, imiquimod 3.75 or 5% cream, and sinecatechins (polypheron E) 15% ointment. Clinician-administered therapies include podophyllin, cryotherapy, bichloroacetic or trichloroacetic acid, oral cimetidine, surgical excision, electrocautery, and carbon dioxide laser therapy. Patients who do not respond to first-line treatments may respond to other therapies or a combination of treatment modalities. Second-line therapies include topical/intralesional/intravenous cidofovir, topical 5-fluorouracil, and topical ingenol mebutate.
Conclusion: No single treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to other treatment modalities. The choice of the treatment method should depend on the physician's comfort level with the various treatment options, the patient's preference and tolerability of treatment, and the number and severity of lesions. The comparative efficacy, ease of administration, adverse effects, cost, and availability of the treatment modality should also be taken into consideration.
CASE REPORT: We present a case report on management of an electrosurgery induced osteonecrosis involving maxillary alveolus of left premolars.
DISCUSSION: Inadvertent contact of the electrosurgery tip on bone can result in necrosis making it necessary to remove the sequestrum and graft the defect. Platelet rich fibrin in combination with bone grafts have been well documented to provide successful periodontal regeneration.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our aim of presenting this report is to create awareness among the health care providers regarding electrosurgical injuries. To our knowledge, this is the first time platelet rich fibrin has been used in the management of intraoral electrosurgical injury. Combining bone grafts with platelet rich fibrin is a good alternative as it can be done with relative ease and predictable outcome.