Classical vs. Retrograde Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy: Analyses and Comparison of the Results.

Background: In endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), surgical landmarks such as the maxillary line (ML) and the axilla of the middle turbinate (MT) guide the surgeon in identifying the lacrimal sac. The primary surgical risk associated with the classical technique, which involves directly opening the lacrimal sac, is the height of the bone drilling on the projection of the lateral wall of the nasal fossa. This poses a significant risk of damaging the orbit, the floor of the frontal sinus, and the anterior skull base. Furthermore, the anatomical variability in size and location of the lacrimal sac poses a risk for difficult and precise surgical identification. Recently, a 'retrograde' technique has been introduced to safely identify and expose the lacrimal sac. The aim of this study is to compare the results of retrograde DCR (rDCR) to a classic technique (clDCR), in terms of clinical recurrence and complications. Methods: A retrospective study on a cohort of 35 patients who underwent DCR at the ENT Department of the Modena University Hospital between January 2010 and October 2022 (18 clDCR and 17 rDCR) was performed. Minimum postoperative follow-up for inclusion was 12 months. We used the Fisher's exact test to compare the two techniques, comparing functional outcomes and clinical recurrence rates. Results: Clinical recurrence of nasolacrimal stenosis in clDCR patients was 50%, compared to 6% in those who underwent rDCR (p-value 0.005). Postoperative surgical complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: rDCR is a safe technique and has been shown to be a statistically more effective surgical technique than clDCR in reducing clinical recurrence rates.

Multidisciplinary Decision-Making-ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. RECENT FINDINGS: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.

Validation of the Modena bleeding score in endoscopic sinus surgery / Validação do escore de sangramento de Modena em cirurgia endoscópica dos seios paranasais

Abstract Introduction: The Modena bleeding score is a categorical rating scale that allows the assessment of the surgical field in relation to bleeding during endoscopic surgery. It has recently been presented and validated in the field of endoscopic ear surgery by the present authors. The Modena bleeding score provides five grades for rating the surgical field during endoscopic procedures (from grade 1 - no bleeding to grade 5 - bleeding that prevents every surgical procedure except those dedicated to bleeding control). Objective: The aim of this study was to validate the Modena bleeding score in the setting of endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: Fifteen three-minute videos of endoscopic sinus surgery procedures (each containing three bleeding situations) were evaluated by 15 specialists, using the Modena bleeding score. Intra and inter-rater reliability were assessed, and the clinical validity of the Modena bleeding score was calculated using a referent standard. Results: The data analysis showed an intra-rater reliability ranging from 0.6336 to 0.861. The inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.676 to 0.844. The clinical validity was α = 0.70; confidence limits: 0.64 - 0.75, corresponding to substantial agreement. Conclusion: The Modena bleeding score is an effective method to score bleeding during endoscopic sinus surgery. Its application in future research could facilitate the performance and efficacy assessment of surgical techniques, materials or devices aimed to bleeding control during endoscopic sinus surgery.

Resumo Introdução: O escore de sangramento de Modena é uma escala de classificação de categorias que permite a avaliação do campo cirúrgico em relação ao sangramento durante a cirurgia endoscópica. Recentemente, ele foi apresentado e validado no campo da cirurgia endoscópica otológica pelos presentes autores. O escore de sangramento de Modena fornece cinco graus para classificação do campo cirúrgico durante procedimentos endoscópicos (de grau 1 - Sem sangramento até grau 5 - Sangramento que impede todos os procedimentos cirúrgicos, exceto aqueles dedicados ao controle de sangramento). Objetivo: Validar o escore de sangramento de Modena no contexto da cirurgia endoscópica nasossinusal. Método: Foram avaliados por 15 especialista 15 vídeos de três minutos de procedimentos de cirurgia endoscópica nasossinusais (cada um com três situações de sangramento), com o uso do escore de sangramento de Modena. A confiabilidade intra e interexaminador foi avaliada e a validade clínica do escore de sangramento foi calculada com um padrão de referência. Resultados: A análise dos dados mostrou confiabilidade intraexaminador que variou de 0,6336 a 0,861. A confiabilidade interexaminador variou de 0,676 a 0,844. A validade clínica foi α = 0,70; limites de confiança: 0,64-0,75, correspondeu a concordância substancial. Conclusão: O escore de sangramento de Modena é um método eficaz para avaliar o sangramento durante a cirurgia endoscópica nasossinusal. Sua aplicação em pesquisas futuras pode facilitar o desempenho e a avaliação da eficácia de técnicas cirúrgicas, do material ou dos dispositivos destinados ao controle de sangramento durante essas cirurgias.