Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of early administration of oral corticosteroids (OC) or nasal corticosteroids (NC) as an add-on to olfactory training (OT) versus OT alone in patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 and OD were prospectively recruited from March 22 to December 15, 2020 from 4 European hospitals. Patients had confirmed OD on psychophysical testing. All patients undertook OT, with add-on 10 days of OC (group 1: OC + OT), or 1 month of NC (group 2: NC + OT) or olfactory training alone (group 3: OT). Olfactory evaluations (Sniffin’Sticks tests) were carried out at the time of inclusion, 1 and 2 months after the start of the therapeutic course. Results: A total of 152 hyposmic or anosmic patients completed the study. Group 1, 2 and 3 included 59, 22 and 71 patients, respectively and all patient groups were comparable regarding baseline Sniffin’Sticks tests. The median Sniffin’Sticks test values significantly improved from pre- to post-intervention in all groups. The increase of Sniffin’Sticks test values was higher in group 1 (OC + OT) compared with groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.001) at one month after treatment but did not remain so at 2 months. Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, presented parosmia in 20/71 (28.2%), 9/22 (40.9%) and 42/71 (59.2%) patients. This difference was statistically significant between group 1 and 3 (p < 0.001). There were no patients with a worsening of the disease or an increase of the severity of the COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions: The use of OCs in patients with OD related to mild COVID-19 is generally well-tolerated without any case of deterioration of symptoms. OC is associated with greater improvement in psychophysical olfactory evaluations at 1-month post-treatment but there was no difference at 2 months. Parosmia may be reduced following treatment with OC and NC. On the basis of these preliminary results, it is possible to state that considering the 2 months efficacy of OC and NC with respect to the OT alone and the risk-benefit ratio, the benefit to start a specific treatment of COVID-19 related OD cannot be demonstrated and there is a need for a randomised controlled trial to assess this further.

This study evaluates the quality and readability of informed consent documents generated by AI platforms ChatGPT-4 and Bard Gemini Advanced compared to those written by a first-year oral surgery resident for common oral surgery procedures. The evaluation, conducted by 18 experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons, assessed consents for accuracy, completeness, readability, and overall quality. ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed both Bard and human-written consents. ChatGPT-4 consents had a median accuracy score of 4 [IQR 4-4], compared to Bard's 3 [IQR 3-4] and human's 4 [IQR 3-4]. Completeness scores were higher for ChatGPT-4 (4 [IQR 4-5]) than Bard (3 [IQR 3-4]) and human (4 [IQR 3-4]). Readability was also superior for ChatGPT-4, with a median score of 4 [IQR 4-5] compared to Bard and human consents, both at 4 [IQR 4-4] and 4 [IQR 3-4], respectively. The Gunning Fog Index for ChatGPT-4 was 17.2 [IQR 16.5-18.2], better than Bard's 23.1 [IQR 20.5-24.7] and the human consents' 20 [IQR 19.2-20.9]. Overall, ChatGPT-4's consents received the highest quality ratings, underscoring AI's potential in enhancing patient communication and the informed consent process. The study suggests AI can reduce misinformation risks and improve patient understanding, but continuous evaluation, oversight, and patient feedback integration are crucial to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of AI-generated content in clinical practice.

Background: The objective evaluation of the olfactory function of coronavirus disease 2019 patients is difficult because of logistical and operator-safety problems. For this reason, in the literature, the data obtained from psychophysical tests are few and based on small case series. Methods: A multicenter, cohort study conducted in seven European hospitals between March 22 and August 20, 2020. The Sniffin-Sticks test and the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center orthonasal olfaction test were used to objectively evaluate the olfactory function. Results: This study included 774 patients, of these 481 (62.1%) presented olfactory dysfunction (OD): 280 were hyposmic and 201 were anosmic. There was a significant difference between self-reported anosmia/hyposmia and psychophysical test results (p = 0.006). Patients with gastroesophageal disorders reported a significantly higher probability of presenting hyposmia (OR 1.86; p = 0.015) and anosmia (OR 2.425; p < 0.001). Fever, chest pain, and phlegm significantly increased the likelihood of having hyposmia but not anosmia or an olfactory disturbance. In contrast, patients with dyspnea, dysphonia, and severe-to-critical COVID-19 were significantly more likely to have no anosmia, while these symptoms had no effect on the risk of developing hyposmia or an OD. Conclusions: Psychophysical assessment represents a significantly more accurate assessment tool for olfactory function than patient self-reported clinical outcomes. Olfactory disturbances appear to be largely independent from the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the patients. The non-association with rhinitis symptoms and the high prevalence as a presenting symptom make olfactory disturbances an important symptom in the differential diagnosis between COVID-19 and common flu.

Although scalp defects can vary in size and thickness, scalp avulsion represents a rare occurrence. This type of lesion may have different origins, but it is usually related to long hair being caught in agricultural machinery. The management of full-thickness scalp defects poses a challenge to the head and neck surgeon due to the possible involvement of neurovascular structures and scar retraction, which can affect the esthetic restoration of the area. Several algorithms for the choice of scalp reconstruction have been proposed in the literature and different techniques are available for extensive scalp defect reconstruction (local soft tissue flap, microvascular free flap, and skin graft combined with dermal substitutes), based upon the scalp defect type. Here we describe six cases of patients with total scalp avulsion, which required a combined reconstruction with a split-thickness skin graft (STSG) and Integra^® matrix immediately after the trauma.

Background: The aim of this study has been to investigate if inflammatory biomarkers such as the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have any correlation with the recurrence of pleomorphic adenomas (PA) in patients afflicted by this disease. Methods: A retrospective multicentre study involving two Italian centres, the Maxillofacial Sur-gery at the Policlinico Federico II in Naples and the ENT and Maxillofacial Surgery at the IRCCS G. Pascale National Cancer Institute in Naples, has been performed. The study, involving 608 pa-tients who had received a diagnosis of PA, was conducted between January 2000 and January 2020. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the optimal cut-off values for the SII, PLR and NLR. A linear regression model (LRM) and a non-linear logistic re-gression model (NLRM) were realized with respect to the NLR, PLR and SII. Results: The highest performance was achieved by the NLR (cut-off 2.960) with the AUC = 0.91, with an accuracy of 96.1%, sensitivity of 78.4% and specificity of 97.2%, PPV = 64.4% and NPV = 98.6%. The LRM and NLRM including all the haematological parameters did not increase the per-formance in terms of recurrence detection. Conclusion: The NLR is an excellent support tool in predicting the recurrence of PA with a cut-off of 2.960. It can be a good reference point for surgical decision-making and follow-up in clinical practice.

Background: The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) remains one of the most reliable and widely adopted reconstructive options for head and neck defects because of its consistent vascular anatomy, long pedicle, and excellent tissue pliability. Nevertheless, donor-site morbidity continues to represent its principal drawback and may negatively affect postoperative recovery, upper-limb function, and patient satisfaction. Although numerous surgical modifications and donor-site reconstruction techniques have been proposed to reduce morbidity, the available evidence remains fragmented and heterogeneous. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the incidence of the principal donor-site complications following RFFF harvest and critically evaluate the current evidence regarding strategies to minimize donor-site morbidity. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statement and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261423543). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to June 2026. Clinical studies reporting donor-site outcomes after RFFF harvest for head and neck reconstruction were eligible. Primary outcomes were tendon exposure and skin graft loss/failure. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate pooled incidence rates. Secondary complications, functional outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures were synthesized qualitatively. Methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and the GRADE framework. Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis of tendon exposure and twelve in the meta-analysis of graft loss/failure. The pooled incidence of tendon exposure was 8% (95% CI, 7–11%; I² = 0%), whereas the pooled incidence of graft loss/failure was 11% (95% CI, 7–16%; I² = 67.1%). Delayed wound healing, infection, sensory disturbances, scar-related morbidity, and functional impairment were reported inconsistently across studies, precluding quantitative synthesis. Available studies generally reported limited long-term functional impairment, although substantial heterogeneity in assessment methods and follow-up precluded quantitative synthesis. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low. Conclusions: Donor-site morbidity following RFFF harvest remains clinically relevant despite the excellent reconstructive reliability of the flap. Approximately one in twelve patients experiences tendon exposure and one in ten experiences graft loss or failure. Current evidence does not support the superiority of any specific donor-site reconstruction technique. Future high-quality prospective comparative studies adopting standardized outcome definitions and validated patient-reported measures are required to optimize donor-site management and improve reconstructive decision-making.