Glandular Odontogenic Cyst: Report of Two Cases and Review of Literature

Glandular odontogenic cyst (GOC) is an uncommon jaw bone cyst of odontogenic origin described in 1987 by Gardner et al. It is a cyst having an unpredictable and potentially aggressive behaviour. It also has the propensity to grow to a large size and tendency to recur with only 111 cases having been reported thus far. The first case occurred in a 42-year-old female and presented as a localized swelling extending from 19 to 29 regions. There was a history of traumatic injury at the site. There was evidence of bicortical expansion and radiographs revealed a multilocular radiolucency. The second case occurred in a 21-year-old male, as a large swelling in the mandible and radiograph revealed radiolucency in the region. On histopathological examination, these lesions were diagnosed as GOC. It was concluded that, two cases submitted by us correlate with the existing literature that GOC’s affect more commonly in the middle age group, having predilection for mandible and that trauma could be a precipitating factor for its occurrence. The increased recurrence rates can be due to its intrinsic biological behavior, multilocularity of the cyst, and incomplete removal of the lining following conservative treatment

Telephone consultations in place of face to face out-patient consultations for patients discharged from hospital following surgery: a systematic review

Background: Routine follow-up following uncomplicated surgery is being delivered by telephone in some settings. Telephone consultations may be preferable to patients and improve outpatient resource use. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of telephone consultations with face to face follow-up consultations, in patients discharged from hospital following surgery. Methods. Seven electronic databases (including Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to July 2011. Comparative studies of any design in which routine follow-up via telephone was compared with face to face consultation in patients discharged from hospital after surgery were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers with consensus reached by discussion and involvement of a third reviewer where necessary. Results: Five papers (four studies; 865 adults) met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of low methodological quality and reported dissimilar outcomes precluding any formal synthesis. Conclusions: There has been very little comparative evaluation of different methods of routine follow-up care in patients discharged from hospital following surgery. Further work is needed to establish a role for telephone consultation in this patient group