Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy in the same patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of audiological and postoperative clinical outcomes between the endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy approaches. METHODS: This study employed a randomized, controlled design. Twenty-seven patients with bilateral otosclerosis underwent stapedotomy in both ears, with randomized allocation of the surgical technique (endoscopic vs. microscopic) for the first operated ear. Air-bone gap (ABG) and ABG gain were measured at least 12 months postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes including pain (Visual Analog Scale-VAS), dizziness, early-term (day 1) and late-term (6 months) dysgeusia were evaluated. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) assessed health-related quality of life at one month postoperatively, and operative time was measured. RESULTS: This study compared endoscopic (n = 27 ears) and microscopic (n = 27 ears) stapedotomy for otosclerosis. Both groups achieved similar hearing improvement with no significant differences in pre-operative and post-operative bone/air conduction thresholds, ABG, and ABG gain (all p > 0.05). The endoscopic stapedotomy group demonstrated reduced postoperative pain (lower VAS scores, p < 0.001), lower early dysgeusia (3.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.005), shorter operative time (47.3 vs. 75.4 min, p < 0.001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (higher GBI score, p = 0.014) when compared to microscopic stapedotomy group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative dizziness or late-term dysgeusia between groups. CONCLUSION: This study found similar hearing improvement with both endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy for otosclerosis. However, the endoscopic approach showed advantages in reduced postoperative pain, early dysgeusia, and operative time, with improved patient-reported quality of life. These findings suggest endoscopic stapedotomy as a valuable alternative to the conventional microscopic approach.

The Effectiveness of Biological Agents on Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis in Patients with Comorbid Asthma: A Multicenter Real-Life Study from Türkiye.

Background and Objectives: Real-life data on the efficacy of biologic agents (BAs) on asthma-comorbid CRSwNP are needed. Our primary goal is to investigate the effects of BAs on CRSwNP symptoms, as well as endoscopic and tomography scores. Our secondary goal is to show a reduction in the frequency of acute sinusitis exacerbations and the need for surgery. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, real-life study. We screened the patients with asthma-comorbid CRSwNP treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab. A total of 69 patients (40 F/29 M; omalizumab n = 55, mepolizumab n = 14) were enrolled. We compared the visual analog scale (VAS), sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22), nasal congestion score (NCS), Lund-Mackay computed tomography score (LMS), and total endoscopic polyp scores (TPS) before and after BAs. We evaluated the endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) frequencies separately, according to the BAs. Results: The overall median (min-max) age was 43 (21-69) years. The median (min-max) of biologic therapy duration was 35 (4-113) months for omalizumab and 13.5 (6-32) for mepolizumab. Significant improvements were seen in VAS, SNOT-22, and NCS with omalizumab and mepolizumab. A significant decrease was observed in TPS with omalizumab [95% CI: 0-4] (p < 0.001), but not with mepolizumab [95% CI: -0.5-2] (p = 0.335). The frequency of ESS and AECRS were significantly reduced with omalizumab [95% CI: 2-3] (p < 0.001) and [95% CI: 2-5] (p < 0.001); and mepolizumab [95% CI: 0-2] (p = 0.002) and [95% CI: 2-8.5] (p < 0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference in LMS with either of the BAs. Conclusions: Omalizumab and mepolizumab can provide a significant improvement in the sinonasal symptom scores. BAs are promising agents for CRSwNP patients with frequent exacerbations and multiple surgeries.

Functional Role of Scroll Reconstruction in Open Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: The scroll area of the nose is important for breathing; thereby, its reconstruction can improve the nasal patency. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of scroll reconstruction on breathing in patients following open rhinoplasty. METHODS: Using the prospective controlled study design, we enrolled a cohort of patients undergoing open rhinoplasty. The patients were randomly divided into two groups (each group with n = 14). The predictor variable was scroll reconstruction (yes/no). The main outcome variables include pre- and postoperative third-month peak nasal inspiratory flowmeter (PNIF) value (ml/min) and 10-Item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). Appropriate statistics were computed, and a P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no demographic difference between both groups. Scroll reconstruction was associated with significantly improved PNIF post-surgery (P = 0.047). However, postoperative mean SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C was not different between the study and control groups (P = 0.58) CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that scroll reconstruction helps improve nasal patency during forced inspiration in open rhinoplasty patients and provides a similar aesthetic outcome compared to the non-scroll-reconstructed group. Future research works should be done in a larger patient cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .