0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters to the Editor |

Statistics or Ethics? Decision to Treat Drooling

Poramate Pitak-Arnnop, DDS, MSc
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(3):315-316. doi:10.1001/archoto.2010.3.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

I read the meta-analysis on surgical treatments of drooling by Reed et al1 with considerable interest. I would like to comment on that article regarding ethical considerations.

  • The article concluded that the success rate of bilateral submandibular gland excision and parotid duct relocation was the highest in sialorrhea surgical management. Yet, it is worth noting that drooling is not hypersalivation but results from failure of the neuromuscular coordination of the swallowing mechanism.2 It therefore seems unethical to sacrifice salivary glands, although a statistical analysis shows more effective outcomes. Adverse outcomes such as poor oral hygiene and rampant dental caries may arise thereafter.2 Moreover, sialorrhea commonly occurs in pediatric or neurologically impaired patients. Routine oral care and fluoride supplementation become crucial in the long run.2 In my experience, I have found that it is best to reroute submandibular gland ducts because this procedure is physiological and less invasive; saliva in contact with the tongue base initiates the swallowing reflex. Furthermore, it produces relatively low complications and causes no scar outside the oral cavity. Salivary gland excision is usually reserved for patients with a history of aspiration pneumonia. Details on therapies for drooling are described in a systematic review that was previously published by my colleagues and me.2

  • Because some patients are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, seeking a legally authorized representative is necessary. As with other innovative surgical procedures, caregivers or patients themselves may form an “innovative alliance” by encouraging their surgeons to try any new thing to enhance the quality of life. Meanwhile, surgeons may apply the innovation for the same reasons, and their decision may be biased by career self-interest and financial gains.3 Also, the patients may take in information only on potential benefits and filter out information on potential risks (known as selective hearing).3 Long-term adverse effects of salivary gland excision may be ignored, while its success rates may be overemphasized. As a general rule, a patient's permission given under “unfair” or “undue” pressure is not consent.4

  • The Declaration of Helsinki states that a new intervention must be tested against the “best current proven intervention.”5 Unfortunately, there has been no universally accepted treatment for drooling hitherto.1,2 The Helsinki declaration also states that patients must be informed of all potential risks.5 Therefore, further investigations have to be carefully designed and conducted.

Topics

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();