A Prospective Observational Study of Complications in 140 Sialendoscopies

Objectives. To evaluate the incidence and nature of complications associated with diagnostic and interventional sialendoscopies and to report intervention failures in a prospective setup. Study Design. Prospective observational study. Setting. Academic tertiary care university hospital. Subjects and Methods. Patients who underwent diagnostic or interventional sialendoscopy between October 2015 and December 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Patient data, operation-related factors, treatment failures, and complications were recorded into a database and analyzed. Results. A total of 140 sialendoscopies were attempted or performed on 118 patients; 67 (48%) were for a parotid gland and 73 (52%) for a submandibular gland. The sialendoscopy was interventional in 81 cases (58%), diagnostic in 56 (40%), and not possible to perform in 3 (2.1%). A total of 21 complications were registered for 21 sialendoscopies (15%) and 21 patients (18%). The most common complication was infection, in 9 cases (6.4%). Other observed complications were salivary duct perforation (4 cases), prolonged glandular swelling (3 cases), transient lingual nerve analgesia (2 cases), basket entrapment (2 cases), and transient weakness in the marginal branch of the facial nerve (1 case). All complications were related to interventional procedures or papilla dilatation. Failure to treat occurred in 21 (15%) sialendoscopies: sialendoscopy itself was unsuccessful in 3 cases, and an intended intervention failed in 18 cases. Conclusion. Complications in sialendoscopy are usually related to interventional procedures. The complications are mainly minor and temporary but lead to additional follow-up visits, further treatments, and sometimes hospitalization. Sialendoscopic procedures are safe but not free of complications.Peer reviewe

Efficacy of glandular irrigation and sialendoscopy in salivary glands affected by Sjögren's syndrome

Sjögren’s syndrome is a progressive disease characterized by a gradual and irreversible decrease in both the quantity and quality of saliva that eventually leads to xerostomia. Hyposalivation can increase susceptibility to dental caries, dental erosion, fungal and bacterial infections, digestive disorders, loss of taste, and difficulty in swallowing, which reduces the quality of life in patients. To date, no ideal medications have been available to treat hyposalivation and xerostomia effectively, and consequently, there is still a need for development of therapeutic agents and strategies. Recently, ductal irrigation and sialendoscopy of the parotid and submandibular glands have gained popularity for its efficacy as palliative treatments. In glandular irrigation, Stensen’s ducts in the parotid glands and Wharton’s ducts in the submandibular glands are irrigated with, for example, saline or corticosteroids by using a cannula. In sialendoscopy, endoscopes that are small enough to be introduced into the salivary ducts of the major salivary glands are utilized. Through these endoscopes, the ducts can be irrigated under direct visualization, blockages can be removed, and strictures can be dilated. An overview of both techniques and their efficacy in relieving symptoms of xerostomia and hyposalivation in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome is presented

Collaboration around rare bone diseases leads to the unique organizational incentive of the Amsterdam Bone Center

In the field of rare bone diseases in particular, a broad care team of specialists embedded in multidisciplinary clinical and research environment is essential to generate new therapeutic solutions and approaches to care. Collaboration among clinical and research departments within a University Medical Center is often difficult to establish, and may be hindered by competition and non-equivalent cooperation inherent in a hierarchical structure. Here we describe the “collaborative organizational model” of the Amsterdam Bone Center (ABC), which emerged from and benefited the rare bone disease team. This team is often confronted with pathologically complex and under-investigated diseases. We describe the benefits of this model that still guarantees the autonomy of each team member, but combines and focuses our collective expertise on a clear shared goal, enabling us to capture synergistic and innovative opportunities for the patient, while avoiding self-interest and possible harmful competition

Collaboration Around Rare Bone Diseases Leads to the Unique Organizational Incentive of the Amsterdam Bone Center

In the field of rare bone diseases in particular, a broad care team of specialists embedded in multidisciplinary clinical and research environment is essential to generate new therapeutic solutions and approaches to care. Collaboration among clinical and research departments within a University Medical Center is often difficult to establish, and may be hindered by competition and non-equivalent cooperation inherent in a hierarchical structure. Here we describe the “collaborative organizational model” of the Amsterdam Bone Center (ABC), which emerged from and benefited the rare bone disease team. This team is often confronted with pathologically complex and under-investigated diseases. We describe the benefits of this model that still guarantees the autonomy of each team member, but combines and focuses our collective expertise on a clear shared goal, enabling us to capture synergistic and innovative opportunities for the patient, while avoiding self-interest and possible harmful competition