Technical note

A laminated template to aid orientation of neck dissection specimens

Accurate orientation of pathological specimens is of fundamental importance, and specimens that are divided postoperatively may be misinterpreted. We asked surgeons and pathologists to identify boundaries between nodal levels on a clinical photograph of a neck dissection specimen. Few participants were able to identify the boundaries between levels accurately, with several important errors where a marked level contained none of the relevant anatomical tissue. Most errors were in level I, and the number decreased towards level IV. Errors were made by both pathologists and surgeons. The boundaries of level IIA were consistently overestimated, which may have implications for previous studies that evaluated patterns of nodal spread.

This paper provides a summary of the 95 papers related to oncology that were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) during 2007–2008. They include full length articles on clinical studies, radiology, basic science, and reconstruction in oral, and head and neck cancer. The journal also publishes technical notes and short communications. It encompasses the whole remit of the specialty and it is encouraging that authors choose to submit their work to BJOMS, but to improve the quality and status of the journal, we need to increase the ratio of full length articles to other submissions.

Reviews of other subspecialties will be published in due course.

Between January 2007 and December 2008, 44 technical notes or related publications (such as letters) were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). These covered most of the remit of the specialty and ranged from operative surgical techniques to the use of digital photographs to orientate surgical specimens. However, there would seem to be very little feedback on the value of these articles in everyday practice.

We reviewed these technical notes and assessed readability, the value and use of illustrations, the possible expense and/or equipment required in their use, and finally the frequency that the techniques could be used. The anonymised publications were read and scored by a minimum of two dentally qualified senior house officers, two doubly qualified specialist registrars, an SAS grade and two consultants in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The six techniques that gained the highest mean average score are briefly discussed.

Although we used a relatively small number of assessors who might not be representative of the whole BJOMS readership, this study would suggest that some sort of change in the way that these technical notes are published should be considered. Options might include inviting a commentary from the reviewers who have tried the technique and also encouraging colleagues to report their experiences of these techniques in the ‘letters to the editor’ section.