International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology-based topics spanning the field. METHODS: In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence-Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus-building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. RESULTS: The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology-based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. CONCLUSION: As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

Cost-effectiveness of routine type and screens in select urological surgeries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a preoperative type and screen (T/S) for common urologic procedures. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to track surgical patients undergoing two preoperative blood ordering strategies as follows: obtaining a preoperative T/S versus not doing so. The model was applied to the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) data, from January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2015. Cost estimates for the model were created from combined patient-level data with published costs of a T/S, type and crossmatch (T/C), a unit of pRBC, and one unit of emergency-release transfusion (ERT). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per ERT prevented, expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two preoperative blood ordering strategies. A cost-effectiveness analysis determined the ICER of obtaining preoperative T/S to prevent an emergency-release transfusion (ERT), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,500.00. RESULTS: A total of 4,113,144 surgical admissions from 2006 to 2015 were reviewed. The overall transfusion rate was 10.54% (95% CI, 10.17-10.91) for all procedures. The ICER of preoperative T/S was $1500.00 per ERT prevented. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the risk of transfusion should exceed 4.12% to justify preoperative T/S. CONCLUSION: Routine preoperative T/S for radical prostatectomy (rate = 3.88%) and penile implants (rate = .91%) does not represent a cost-effective practice for these surgeries. It is important for urologists to review their institution T/S policy to reduce inefficiencies within the preoperative setting.

Fibrosarcomas of the Paranasal Sinuses: A Systematic Review.

Fibrosarcomas are rare, malignant neoplasms of mesenchymal origin. Fibrosarcomas appear to be sporadic, but cases of fibrosarcomas secondary to radiation of nasopharyngeal carcinomas have been reported. Paranasal sinus fibrosarcomas (PNFS) are even rarer with few cases being reported since the 1950s. There have been several retrospective cohort studies examining PNFS; however, to our knowledge, no comprehensive review exists. This review aims to summarize the findings of all published cases of PNFS from the 1950s to the 2020s. We hope that a comprehensive review will assist in accurate and early diagnoses of PNFS, and help guide treatment as early treatment is associated with a favorable prognosis.This systematic review reports results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Studies were screened using established inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 26 studies were included for data extraction, and relevant data were collected and analyzed.In our study, the most common study type was case reports (n = 19). The most common presentation for PNFS included male gender (n = 17) with maxillary sinus (n = 57) involvement. Patients commonly presented with complaints of nasal obstruction (n = 15), epistaxis (n = 11), and facial fullness/pain (n = 9). Surgical resection was the mainstay treatment, with the use of chemotherapy or radiation depending on surgical margins and resectability. The diagnosis was commonly made with histological analysis. This review of the literature provides a summary and reference of important presenting factors, elements of diagnosis, and treatment options regarding PNFS to help bring awareness and guide the treatment of such a rare disease. Moving forward, there is a greater need for larger standardized studies that can further complement our findings, as well as more consistent reporting of cases.

Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This study uses published research to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to superior patient outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews were followed and a literature search was conducted in four databases based on our search strategy. Articles were then imported into COVIDENCE where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. Twenty articles were selected in this study after 243 articles were screened. There were 4 case series, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 1 case-control, and 2 outcomes research. There were three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that included both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies utilized both open and closed rhinoplasty and four utilized open rhinoplasty. Both techniques demonstrated high patient and provider satisfaction and no advantage was found between techniques. Based on available studies, we cannot conclude if there is a preference between open or closed rhinoplasty in terms of which technique leads to better patient outcomes. Several studies determined that open rhinoplasty and closed rhinoplasty leads to comparative patient satisfaction. To make outcome reporting more reliable and uniform among studies, authors should look to utilize the Nasal Obstruction and Septoplasty Effectiveness scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation.

Intranasally applied human olfactory mucosa neural progenitor cells migrate to damaged brain regions.

Aim: To determine if intranasally administered olfactory mucosa progenitor cells (OMPCs) migrate to damaged areas of brain. Materials & methods: Rowett Nude (RNU) adult rats were injured using the Marmarou model then 2 weeks later received intranasally-delivered human OMPC. After 3 weeks, rats were sacrificed and brain sectioned. The mean distances from the human OMPCs to markers for degenerative neuronal cell bodies (p-c-Jun+), axonal swellings on damaged axons (ß-APP+) and random points in immunostained sections were quantified. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze data. Results: The human OMPCs were seen in specific areas of the brain near degenerating cell bodies and damaged axons. Conclusion: Intranasally delivered human OMPC selectively migrate to brain injury sites suggesting a possible noninvasive stem cell delivery for brain injury.

Outcomes Associated with Nasal Reconstruction Post-Rhinectomy: A Narrative Review.

The face and the external nose define an individual's physical appearance. Nasal deformities can cause facial disfigurement along with unwanted psychological repercussions. Nasal deformities range in severity, with the most severe cases being indications for a rhinectomy, due to the complexity of the nasal defect. According to published literature, there is no consensus among otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons on which technique or flap use is preferred in terms of complications, aesthetic outcome, or patient satisfaction. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of published studies on nasal reconstruction following rhinectomy. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines for writing systematic reviews, a systematic review was conducted. Four databases were searched using a search strategy. These articles were then imported into the COVIDENCE software and went screening and thorough article review. After screening 2,237 articles, 23 studies were then extracted for data collection analysis. We collected data from 12 case series, 4 case studies, 1 prospective case series, and 4 retrospective chart review studies. The most commonly reported flaps were forehead flaps, superior extended nasal myocutaneous island, forearm free flaps, anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flap, medial femoral condyle free flap ( n = 8), and zygomaticus implants ( n = 6), and retained nasal prosthesis. Although not specifically indicated by a certain number, the most common indication for the rhinectomy was malignancy, followed by traumas, postsurgical complications, radionecrosis, and congenital nasal malformations. Although several donor flaps can be used after rhinectomy, we conclude that there is no preference over what flap has superior patient outcomes after analysis. As of current, there are no prospective studies that exist. Therefore, more research is necessary to determine the results of each flap.

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Type and Screens in Select Endonasal Skull Base Surgeries.

Objective The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining preoperative type and screens (T/S) for common endonasal skull base procedures, and determine patient and hospital factors associated with receiving blood transfusions. Study Design Retrospective database analysis of the 2006 to 2015 National (nationwide) Inpatient Sample and cost-effectiveness analysis. Main Outcome Measures Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with transfusions. A cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of obtaining preoperative T/S to prevent an emergency-release transfusion (ERT), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,500. Results A total of 93,105 cases were identified with an overall transfusion rate of 1.89%. On multivariate modeling, statistically significant factors associated with transfusion included nonelective admission (odds ratio [OR]: 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.02), anemia (OR: 4.42; 95% CI: 3.35-5.83), coagulopathy (OR: 4.72; 95% CI: 2.94-7.57), diabetes (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.14-1.84), liver disease (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.27-4.43), pulmonary circulation disorders (OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.71-6.29), and metastatic cancer (OR: 5.85; 95% CI: 2.63-13.0; p < 0.01 for all). The ICER of preoperative T/S was $3,576 per ERT prevented. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the risk of transfusion should exceed 4.12% to justify preoperative T/S. Conclusion Routine preoperative T/S does not represent a cost-effective practice for these surgeries using nationally representative data. A selective T/S policy for high-risk patients may reduce costs.

Ewing Sarcoma of the Craniofacial Bones: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review on the demographics, characteristics, management, treatment, complications, and outcomes of Ewing sarcomas in the craniofacial bones. DATA SOURCES: Using Cochrane Library, EmBase, and PubMed, the authors identified 71 studies to be included. REVIEW METHODS: The Cochrane Library, EmBase, and PubMed databases were used to identify literature relating to Ewing sarcomas in the craniofacial bone to conduct a systematic review. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment strategies were extracted. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies encompassing 102 patients were identified. The most common craniofacial locations involved were the frontal bone (16.7%, n = 17), nasal cavity (16.7%, n = 17), and temporal bone (14.7%, n = 15). Stratified by location, the most common presenting symptoms were frontal bone (palpable mass, n = 8, 47.1%), nasal cavities (epistaxis, n = 9, 52.9%), and temporal bones (headache, n = 5, 33.3%). The 3 most commonly used treatment strategies were a combination of surgical intervention/radiotherapy/chemotherapy (n = 43, 43%), a combination of radiotherapy/chemotherapy (n = 18, 18%), and a combination of surgical intervention/chemotherapy (n = 15, 15%). Patients who received a combination of surgical intervention/radiotherapy/chemotherapy experienced local recurrence rate of 16.6%. However, other combinations of therapies such as surgical intervention/chemotherapy and radiotherapy/chemotherapy had a lower local recurrence rate but were limited by small sample size. Most patients (79.0%) were disease free without evidence of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Ewing Sarcoma of the craniofacial bones has a good prognosis when treated appropriately. Given that our study was limited by retrospective data, we advise clinicians to use the findings of this article with their own clinical judgment to determine which treatment strategy they should pursue.

Cost-Effectiveness of Open vs. Endoscopic Repair of Zenker's Diverticulum.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open versus endoscopic surgical repair of Zenker's diverticulum. METHODS: In this study, an economic decision tree was utilized to compare the cost-effectiveness of open surgery compared to endoscopic surgery. The primary outcome in this analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that was calculated based on the economic decision tree. The probability of post-operative esophageal perforation complications, revision rates, and effectiveness of each procedure along with associated costs were extracted to construct the decision tree. Univariate sensitivity analysis was then utilized to determine how changes in esophageal perforation rate affect the cost-effectiveness of each surgical approach. RESULTS: The ICER of open surgery for Zenker's diverticulum was $67 877, above most acceptable willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds. Additionally, if the probability of esophageal perforation with endoscopic surgery is above 5%, then open surgery becomes a more cost-effective option. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations also showed that at the WTP thresholds of $30 000 and $50 000, endoscopic surgery is the most cost-effective method with 83.9% and 67.6% certainty, respectively. CONCLUSION: Open surgery and endoscopic surgery are 2 treatment strategies for Zenker's diverticulum that each have their own advantages and disadvantages that can complicate the decision-making process. With no previous cost-effectiveness analysis of open versus endoscopic surgery for Zenker's diverticulum, our results support the endoscopic approach at most common WTP thresholds. Particularly with the current focus on rising healthcare costs, our results can serve as an important adjunct to medical decision-making for patients undergoing treatment for Zenker's diverticulum.

Flipping the Classroom: An Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Strategies in the Operating Room.

OBJECTIVES: With increasing restraints on resident's experiences in the operating room, with causes ranging from decreased time available to increasing operating room costs, focus has been placed on how to improve resident's education. The objectives of our study are to (1) determine barriers in education in the operating room, (2) identify effective learning and teaching strategies for residents in the operating room with a focus on the tonsillectomy procedure. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all otolaryngology residents and residency programs for which contact information was available from January 2016 to March 2016 with 139 respondents. The 12-question survey focused on information regarding limitations to learning how to perform tonsillectomies as well as difficulties with teaching the same procedure. Resident responses were separated based on PGY level, and analysis was performed using t-tests and Chi squared analysis. RESULTS: Common themes emerged from responses for both teaching and learning how to perform tonsillectomies. A significant limitation in learning the procedure was lack of visualization during the surgery (57% learning vs 60% teaching). For both learners and teachers, the monopolar cautery instrument was found to be the most preferred instrument to use during tonsillectomy (80% each). The majority of resident respondents (93%) felt that an instructional video would be beneficial for both learning and teaching the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Significant limitations for learning and teaching in the operating room were identified for performing tonsillectomies. Future endeavors will focus on resolving these limitations to improve surgical education. EVIDENCE LEVEL: Level IV.

The underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in anesthesiology.

PURPOSE: Diversity is crucial in the medical field, where patients have a significantly wide range of ethnic and racial backgrounds. With the increase in diversity in medical school and the growing list of subspecialties in medicine, we would expect to see a rise in diversity in the field of anesthesiology. The purpose of this study is to analyze the representation of gender and underrepresented minorities in anesthesiology residency programs from 2013 through 2019. METHODS: To study the ethnic, racial and gender diversity in residents in the field of anesthesiology, data was analyzed from the self-reported data collected in the Journal of the American Medical Association annual report on Graduate Medical Education over the academic period from 2013 through 2019. RESULTS: In 2013, female trainees made up 36.0% and Black trainees encompassed 5.9% whereas in 2019, female trainees comprised a mere 33.0% of total anesthesiology residents while Black trainees decreased to 5.5%. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the disparity in the demographic composition of anesthesiology trainees and emphasizes the importance of having a more diverse workforce in the field of anesthesiology.

Sex, Racial, and Ethnic Diversity of Dermatology Trainees, 2014-2018.

Although the US population is becoming increasingly diverse, diversity in medicine is lacking. Our aim was to examine trends in sex, racial, and ethnic diversity of trainees in the field of dermatology. Graduate medical education supplements published annually in the Journal of the American Medical Association were used to obtain demographic data of dermatology trainees from 2014 to 2018. Over the past 5 years, women have made up the majority of trainees in dermatology. The representation of women residents has remained relatively stable from 2014 to 2018, with most current data indicating that women comprise 60.78% of dermatology residents. The representation of Hispanic and black trainees in dermatology, however, lags behind that of other specialties. Racial and ethnic diversity in dermatology is still trailing, and further efforts are necessary to improve representation.

The Representation of Women and Ethnic Minorities among Integrated Plastic Surgery Trainees: A Persistent Need for Diversification.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in the workplace is crucial. As the United States population continues to diversify, the composition of graduate medical trainees (GMTs) among various medical specialties is not diversifying at nearly the same rate. This study aims to identify gender and ethnic minority disparities present in medicine, specifically among GMTs in the field of plastic surgery. PURPOSE: The field of plastic surgery is vast, with the patient population ranging from newborns to elders of all different races, religions, and ethnicities. However, the representation of women and minorities among the current plastic surgery trainees is not equivalent to the population they serve. METHODS: Data from the Graduate Medical Education (GME) census published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was analyzed to compare trends of female and underrepresented ethnic minorities over the academic period from 2015 through 2019. Data regarding all GMTs and specifically those in the integrated plastic surgery (IPS) program was collected. RESULTS: Over the five-year study period, females were consistently underrepresented in plastic surgery when compared to the total number of female medical trainees. Currently, females represent 42.7% of GMTs in IPS, a small increase from 40.9% in 2015. Furthermore, Whites and Asians encompassed 87.7% (65.6% and 22.1%, respectively) of plastic surgery GMTs in 2019-2020. In the same academic year, Blacks and Hispanics together made up only 9.1% (2.5% and 6.6%, respectively) of GMTs in plastic surgery. CONCLUSION: This study portrays the importance of highlighting gender and ethnic minority disparities in the field of plastic surgery, thereby promoting initiatives for change in the coming future.

E-Cigarette Burns and Explosions: What are the Patterns of Oromaxillofacial Injury?

PURPOSE: With the recent increase in popularity of electronic cigarette use in the United States, its harmful effects are not only limited to smoke inhalation, but also to the possibility of e-cigarette device malfunction. The purpose of this review is to characterize oromaxillofacial trauma secondary to electronic cigarette device explosion. METHODS: For this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were searched in October 2019 using the following search terms: e-cigarette burns, e-cigarette injury, and e-cigarette explosions, which yielded 400 studies. Basic science research, animal studies, non-English studies, and reports of non-oromaxillofacial injuries were excluded. Study subject demographics, mechanism of trauma, injury type, treatment, and sequelae were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Of all studies, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 14 case reports and 6 case series, with a total of 21 study subjects. For cases that reported sex, 100% were male (20) with a mean age of 29.5 years. Most common lacerations and/or burns involved the lips (10/21), tongue (8/21), soft palate and/or hard palate (4/21), and nose (5/21). Thirteen subjects underwent surgeries including oral-maxillofacial surgery or dental implants (7/13), bone graft repair (3/13), open reduction and internal fixation for preservation of sinus outflow tracts (2/13), foreign body removal from the cervical spine (1/13), and iridectomy (1/13). Reported complications included bone loss secondary to traumatic fracture, tinnitus and hearing loss, lip paralysis secondary to persistent edema, major depressive disorder/ post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent sinusitis, photophobia, and bilateral axillary and hand contractures. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic cigarette device malfunction and explosion carries great risk for acute oromaxillofacial trauma that may be disfiguring. With the increasing popularity of electronic cigarette use, clinicians and patients should be advised regarding dangers of electronic cigarette use.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid use disorder (OUD), which includes the morbidity of dependence and mortality of overdose, has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Overprescription of opioids can lead to chronic use and misuse, and unused narcotics after surgery can lead to their diversion. Research supports that most patients do not take all the prescribed opioids after surgery and that surgeons are the second largest prescribers of opioids in the United States. The introduction of opioids in those with OUD often begins with prescription opioids. Reducing the number of extra opioids available after surgery through smaller prescriptions, safe storage, and disposal should reduce the risk of opioid use disorder in otolaryngology patients and their families. PURPOSE: The purpose of this specialty-specific guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in postoperative pain management of common otolaryngologic surgical procedures. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. Employing these action statements should reduce the variation in care across the specialty and improve postoperative pain control while reducing risk of OUD. The target patients for the guideline are any patients treated for anticipated or reported pain within the first 30 days after undergoing common otolaryngologic procedures. The target audience of the guideline is otolaryngologists who perform surgery and clinicians who manage pain after surgical procedures. Outcomes to be considered include whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.The guideline addresses assessment of the patient for OUD risk factors, counseling on pain expectations, and identifying factors that can affect pain duration and/or severity. It also discusses the use of multimodal analgesia as first-line treatment and the responsible use of opioids. Last, safe disposal of unused opioids is discussed.This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not a comprehensive guide on pain management in otolaryngologic procedures. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experiences and assessments of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements: (3A) prior to surgery, clinicians should identify risk factors for opioid use disorder when analgesia using opioids is anticipated; (6) clinicians should advocate for nonopioid medications as first-line management of pain after otolaryngologic surgery; (9) clinicians should recommend that patients (or their caregivers) store prescribed opioids securely and dispose of unused opioids through take-back programs or another accepted method.The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) prior to surgery, clinicians should advise patients and others involved in the postoperative care about the expected duration and severity of pain; (2) prior to surgery, clinicians should gather information specific to the patient that modifies severity and/or duration of pain; (3B) in patients at risk for OUD, clinicians should evaluate the need to modify the analgesia plan; (4) clinicians should promote shared decision making by informing patients of the benefits and risks of postoperative pain treatments that include nonopioid analgesics, opioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic interventions; (5) clinicians should develop a multimodal treatment plan for managing postoperative pain; (7) when treating postoperative pain with opioids, clinicians should limit therapy to the lowest effective dose and the shortest duration; (8A) clinicians should instruct patients and caregivers how to communicate if pain is not controlled or if medication side effects occur; (8B) clinicians should educate patients to stop opioids when pain is controlled with nonopioids and stop all analgesics when pain has resolved; (10) clinicians should inquire, within 30 days of surgery, whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid use disorder (OUD), which includes the morbidity of dependence and mortality of overdose, has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Overprescription of opioids can lead to chronic use and misuse, and unused narcotics after surgery can lead to their diversion. Research supports that most patients do not take all the prescribed opioids after surgery and that surgeons are the second largest prescribers of opioids in the United States. The introduction of opioids in those with OUD often begins with prescription opioids. Reducing the number of extra opioids available after surgery through smaller prescriptions, safe storage, and disposal should reduce the risk of opioid use disorder in otolaryngology patients and their families. PURPOSE: The purpose of this specialty-specific guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in postoperative pain management of common otolaryngologic surgical procedures. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. Employing these action statements should reduce the variation in care across the specialty and improve postoperative pain control while reducing risk of OUD. The target patients for the guideline are any patients treated for anticipated or reported pain within the first 30 days after undergoing common otolaryngologic procedures. The target audience of the guideline is otolaryngologists who perform surgery and clinicians who manage pain after surgical procedures. Outcomes to be considered include whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.The guideline addresses assessment of the patient for OUD risk factors, counseling on pain expectations, and identifying factors that can affect pain duration and/or severity. It also discusses the use of multimodal analgesia as first-line treatment and the responsible use of opioids. Last, safe disposal of unused opioids is discussed.This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not a comprehensive guide on pain management in otolaryngologic procedures. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experiences and assessments of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements: (3A) prior to surgery, clinicians should identify risk factors for opioid use disorder when analgesia using opioids is anticipated; (6) clinicians should advocate for nonopioid medications as first-line management of pain after otolaryngologic surgery; (9) clinicians should recommend that patients (or their caregivers) store prescribed opioids securely and dispose of unused opioids through take-back programs or another accepted method.The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) prior to surgery, clinicians should advise patients and others involved in the postoperative care about the expected duration and severity of pain; (2) prior to surgery, clinicians should gather information specific to the patient that modifies severity and/or duration of pain; (3B) in patients at risk for OUD, clinicians should evaluate the need to modify the analgesia plan; (4) clinicians should promote shared decision making by informing patients of the benefits and risks of postoperative pain treatments that include nonopioid analgesics, opioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic interventions; (5) clinicians should develop a multimodal treatment plan for managing postoperative pain; (7) when treating postoperative pain with opioids, clinicians should limit therapy to the lowest effective dose and the shortest duration; (8A) clinicians should instruct patients and caregivers how to communicate if pain is not controlled or if medication side effects occur; (8B) clinicians should educate patients to stop opioids when pain is controlled with nonopioids and stop all analgesics when pain has resolved; (10) clinicians should inquire, within 30 days of surgery, whether the patient has stopped using opioids, has disposed of unused opioids, and was satisfied with the pain management plan.

Acute epiglottitis: Analysis of U.S. mortality trends from 1979 to 2017.

PURPOSE: Evaluate trends in mortality due to acute epiglottitis before and after adoption of Haemophilus influenza Type b vaccination (Hib) in pediatric and adult populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who died from acute epiglottis from 1979 to 2017 identified using National Vital Statistics System. Mortality rates calculated using age-adjusted US census data expressed in rate per 100,000 individuals. Trends analyzed using the National Cancer Institute Joinpoint Regression Program (version 4.7.0; Bethesda, Maryland). RESULTS: 1187 epiglottitis-related deaths were identified over thirty-nine years. Total deaths decreased from 65 in 1979 to 15 in 2017. Adult deaths accounted for 63.5% and decreased from 0.015 per 100,000 individuals (24 deaths) in 1979 to 0.006 per 100,000 individuals (14 deaths) in 2017. Best fitting log-liner regression model showed APC of -3.5% (95% CI, -4.2 to -2.7%) from 1979 to 2017. Pediatric and adolescent deaths accounted for 443 (37.3%) deaths, decreasing from 0.064 per 100,000 individuals (41 deaths) in 1979 to 0.001 per 100,000 individuals (1 death) in 2017. APC was -11.1% (95% CI, -13.8% to -8.3%) in 1979 to 1990; 46.5% (95% CI, -16.6% to 157.3%) in 1990 to 1993; -61.6% (95% CI, -88% to 23%) in 1993 to 1996; and 1.1% (95% CI, -2.4% to 4.7%) in 1996 to 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from acute epiglottitis decreased after widespread adoption of Hib vaccination in the US. Adults are now more likely than children to die of acute epiglottitis. Further research including multi-institutional cohort studies must be done to elucidate causative factors contributing to remaining cases of mortality.

Factors Important in the Selection of a Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery Fellow: A National Survey of Fellowship Directors.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship programs and applicants have been increasing in recent years. However, little information is currently available with regards to the most important aspects of the application process. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the factors that Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship directors consider most important when selecting a fellow. METHODS: An anonymous, online survey was distributed to current Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship directors. 28 of 31 fellowship directors (90%) completed the survey. Respondents were asked to provide basic information regarding the program and to rank various selection factors they deem most important. RESULTS: For assessing the quality of an application, fellowship directors placed the highest value on LORs. Research experience and publications were also important considerations. The traditional strength of an applicant's residency program was a factor, while medical school performance, USMLE scores, and OTE score did not play a significant role in the selection process. For subjective assessment of applicants, the most value was placed on faculty assessment of the applicant during their interview. Attention was also given to personality fit with the program and the perceived maturity and initiative of the applicant. CONCLUSION: Numerous academic achievements and personal characteristics are given consideration in the Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship selection process, but recommendation from a trusted colleague and performance on interviews were viewed to be the most critical factors for fellowship programs in selecting applicants. This is consistent with studies that have explored the selection process for other otolaryngology fellowship programs.