Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2024
Oral and oropharyngeal mucosal lesions: clinical-epidemiological study of patients attended at a reference center for infectious diseases.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reis Clarissa Souza Mota, Reis João Gustavo Corrêa, Conceição-Silva Fátima, Valete Cláudia Maria
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, epidemiological profile, and clinical characteristics of Oral or Oropharyngeal Mucosal Lesions (OOPML) in patients attended at the Otorhinolaryngology Service of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases (INI-FIOCRUZ) from 2005 to 2017.
METHODS: Statistical analysis of descriptive data from medical records (gender, age, education level, skin color, origin, smoking, alcoholism, HIV co-infection, time of disease evolution, first symptom, and OOPML location) was performed.
RESULTS: Of 7551 patients attended at the service, 620 (8.2%) were included in the study. OOPML were classified into developmental anomalies (n = 3), infectious diseases (non-granulomatous n = 220; granulomatous n = 155), autoimmune diseases (n = 24), neoplasms (benign n = 13; malignant, n = 103), and unclassified epithelial/soft tissue diseases (n = 102). OOPML of infectious diseases (60.5%) and neoplasms (18.7%) were the most frequent. The predominant demographics of patients with OOPML were: males (63.5%), white (53.5%), and those in the fifth to sixth decades of life (43.3%). Local pain (18.1%) and odynophagia (15%) were the most reported first symptoms, and the most frequent OOPML sites were the palatine tonsil (28.5%), hard palate (22.7%), and tongue (20.3%). The median evolution time was three months.
CONCLUSIONS: Infectious OOPML were the most frequent, as expected in a reference center for infectious diseases, and thus, they are likely to be less frequent in general care and/or dental services. Underreporting of OOPML is possible, as oral/oropharyngeal examination is often not included in the routine medical examination. Oral cavity/oropharynx examination should be performed by specialists, such as dentists and otorhinolaryngologists, who have the expertise in identifying OOPML, even in incipient/asymptomatic cases. Given the numerous diseases in which OOPML can present, diagnosis could be facilitated by multidisciplinary teams, potentially enabling the early treatment of diseases, and thus, reduce morbidity and improve prognosis. The use of standardized medical records for oral/oropharyngeal systematic examination could provide relevant tools for differential diagnoses and information for new clinical-epidemiological studies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
METHODS: Statistical analysis of descriptive data from medical records (gender, age, education level, skin color, origin, smoking, alcoholism, HIV co-infection, time of disease evolution, first symptom, and OOPML location) was performed.
RESULTS: Of 7551 patients attended at the service, 620 (8.2%) were included in the study. OOPML were classified into developmental anomalies (n = 3), infectious diseases (non-granulomatous n = 220; granulomatous n = 155), autoimmune diseases (n = 24), neoplasms (benign n = 13; malignant, n = 103), and unclassified epithelial/soft tissue diseases (n = 102). OOPML of infectious diseases (60.5%) and neoplasms (18.7%) were the most frequent. The predominant demographics of patients with OOPML were: males (63.5%), white (53.5%), and those in the fifth to sixth decades of life (43.3%). Local pain (18.1%) and odynophagia (15%) were the most reported first symptoms, and the most frequent OOPML sites were the palatine tonsil (28.5%), hard palate (22.7%), and tongue (20.3%). The median evolution time was three months.
CONCLUSIONS: Infectious OOPML were the most frequent, as expected in a reference center for infectious diseases, and thus, they are likely to be less frequent in general care and/or dental services. Underreporting of OOPML is possible, as oral/oropharyngeal examination is often not included in the routine medical examination. Oral cavity/oropharynx examination should be performed by specialists, such as dentists and otorhinolaryngologists, who have the expertise in identifying OOPML, even in incipient/asymptomatic cases. Given the numerous diseases in which OOPML can present, diagnosis could be facilitated by multidisciplinary teams, potentially enabling the early treatment of diseases, and thus, reduce morbidity and improve prognosis. The use of standardized medical records for oral/oropharyngeal systematic examination could provide relevant tools for differential diagnoses and information for new clinical-epidemiological studies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.