Development of a novel self-assessment tool following endoscopic sinus surgery in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a novel quality metric tool for retrospectively examining ESS performed on chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients, ultimately to facilitate clinician self-assessment and optimize care provision within this population. DESIGN: Quality improvement study. SETTING: Multi-center. PARTICIPANTS: Observational, prospective research database of adult patients with medically recalcitrant CRS, presenting to seven North-American academic rhinology centers, who underwent ESS between 2011 and 2021. Participant characteristics, comorbidities, and preoperative study measures were collected. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A simple ratio of preoperative Lund-Mackay (LM) score to the number of sinus regions operated on during the course of ESS was determined for each participant and dichotomized into ratios of >1.0 or <1.0. RESULTS: 828 study participants with medically recalcitrant CRS met final study inclusion, of which 47.8 % were male with an average age of 49.0 years. Approximately 50.9 % of participants had a history of previous ESS. Overall mean ratio between preoperative LM scores and numbers of surgically addressed sinuses for all patients with CRS (n = 828) was 1.61 (range: 0.00-6.00), with a minority of subjects (n = 108; 13.0 %) found to have ratios below 1.00. Mean ratios between patients who underwent primary ESS versus revision ESS were not statistically different (2.00 [±0.83] vs 1.98 [±0.88]; 0.02 %, 95 % CI -0.10, 0.14; P = 0.76), whereas differences in mean ratios between CRSsNP patients (without nasal polyposis) and CRSwNP patients (with nasal polyposis) were statistically significant (1.78 [±0.93] vs 2.26 [±0.67]; 0.48 %, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.59; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This quality metric ratio represents a simple operational means for clinicians to integrate qualitative methodology into self-reflection when evaluating the extent of ESS performed on CRS patients. Its use as a clinical tool for retrospective self-reflection enables the surgeon to identify areas for improvement, assess situational specifics, and hone their craft.

Impacts of Socioeconomic Status on Dentoalveolar Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Children sustain dentoalveolar trauma and lose teeth at the same rate regardless of socioeconomic status; however, debate surrounds these rates in adults. It is known socioeconomic status plays a major role in access and treatment in health care. This study aims to clarify the role of socioeconomic status as a risk factor for dentoalveolar trauma in adults. METHODS: A single center retrospective chart review took place from January 2011 through December 2020 for patients requiring oral maxillofacial surgery consultation in the emergency department, due to either dentoalveolar trauma (Group 1) or other dental condition (Group 2). Demographic information including age, sex, race, marital status, employment status, and type of insurance were collected. Odds ratios were calculated by chi-square analysis with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Over the course of 10 years, 247 patients (53% female) required an oral maxillofacial surgery consultation, with 65 (26%) sustaining dentoalveolar trauma. Within this group, there were significantly more subjects who were Black, single, insured with Medicaid, unemployed, and 18 - 39 years old. In the nontraumatic control group, there were significantly more subjects who were White, married, insured with Medicare, and 40 - 59 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Among those seen in the emergency department requiring an oral maxillofacial surgery consultation, those with dentoalveolar trauma have an increased likelihood of being single, Black, insured with Medicaid, unemployed, and 18 - 39 years old. Further research is needed to determine causality and the most critical/influential socioeconomic status factor in sustaining dentoalveolar trauma. Identifying these factors can assist in developing future community-based prevention and educational programs.

Indications for absorbable steroid-eluting sinus implants: Viewpoint via the Delphi method.

Absorbable steroid-eluting sinus implants provide targeted corticosteroid release over a sustained period and are designed to prevent both undesirable adhesion formation and sinus ostia restenosis. Here, we highlight the key evidence of these implants to date and query a group of experts via a Delphi process on the indications and optimal timing for intraoperative or in-office placement of these implants. Six of a total of 12 statements reached consensus and were accepted. Overall, experts largely agree that intraoperative or in-office use of steroid-eluting stents could be considered for patients: (1) who are diabetic or intolerant of oral steroids, (2) undergoing extended frontal sinus surgery, and (3) with recurrent stenosis. Given the lack of expert consensus on other key statements, clinicians should carefully consider these treatment options on a case-by-case basis after shared decision-making.

Pott's puffy tumor: A comprehensive review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Pott's puffy tumor (PPT) is a rare clinical entity characterized by osteomyelitis of the frontal bone with subperiosteal abscess collection. The frequency of reported cases of PPT in the literature has increased in recent years. Previous reviews of PPT exist primarily in the form of small, retrospective case series and anecdotal case reports. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide the literature's largest comprehensive, up-to-date review of the essential clinical findings, diagnostic modalities, microbiologic considerations, and treatment approaches utilized in the management of PPT, both in pediatric and adult populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase databases for English-language studies published from January 1950 through January 30, 2022. The authors reviewed all cases of PPT, focusing specifically on those describing therapeutic management of PPT. A total of 321 patients were included, consisting of 318 patients (from 216 articles) and an additional 3 adult cases from our institution. RESULTS: PPT most often results from untreated rhinosinusitis, as well as direct head trauma, substance use, and odontogenic disease. Infections are classically polymicrobial with an anaerobe-predominant microbiome. Both CT and MRI imaging modalities are commonly obtained for presurgical assessment of sinusitis and intracranial extension. The core of treatment is an early and aggressive approach to prevent long-term complications. A significant association exists between surgical management and clinical outcomes for patients with PPT. Recent literature suggests endoscopic sinus surgery is essential for successful disease resolution. CONCLUSIONS: PPT is an important and relatively morbid disease process that is often underrecognized and misdiagnosed at presentation due to its variable clinical presentation. Management of PPT includes both antimicrobial therapy and surgical intervention. Determination of the optimal approach depends on patient clinical features including age, history of prior endoscopic sinus surgery, and presence of intracranial involvement on presentation. An individualized, targeted, and interdisciplinary approach to the treatment of PPT is critical for successful disease resolution.

Duration of effectiveness of coblation for recurrent epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

INTRODUCTION: Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is an autosomal dominant disease leading to recurrent epistaxis, telangiectasias, and/or visceral arteriovenous malformations. Multiple treatment methods, including both pharmacologic and surgical, are described to be effective in managing symptomatic HHT. Few report the duration of symptom improvement for each of these treatment methods. This study aims to analyze the duration of effectiveness of coblation treatment for recurrent epistaxis in those with HHT. METHODS: Retrospective single-center chart review was completed for patients diagnosed with HHT who underwent coblation treatment by the same otolaryngologist from December 2009 to November 2021. Demographic information was collected along with whether local Bevacizumab was used during each treatment. Months between treatment coblation sessions was used as a surrogate for duration of treatment effectiveness. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis alongside quantitative statistical analysis. RESULTS: Over the course of 12 years, 57 patients (24 female, 42.11%) with HHT underwent a total number of 150 coblation treatments. The average age at initial coblation was 59 years (29-88) with an average follow-up time of 5 years (1-12 years). Of the 150 coblations, 30 treatments (20%) included bevacizumab injections into the nasal cavity. The average duration of treatment effectiveness across all 150 treatment sessions was 24.5 months (1-87 months). Of the 26 patients (46%) that underwent multiple coblation treatments, the overall average duration of coblation effectiveness was 16.4 months (1-72 mos). When Bevacizumab was utilized, the average duration of effectiveness was 18.3 months (3-62 mos), while the average duration of effectiveness for treatments without Bevacizumab was 15.7 months (1-87 mos, p > 0.251). Further, there was no correlation between duration of treatment effectiveness and age, sex, and race; yet,there was a significant negative correlation between the use of tobacco and duration of coblation effectiveness (p = 0.0202). CONCLUSIONS: Coblation is an effective treatment option for the management of epistaxis in patients with HHT with duration of benefit lasting approximately 2 years. The use of Bevacizumab did not add to the duration of treatment benefit. Further, the duration of benefit was negatively impacted by smoking history.

Corticosteroid Use in Otolaryngology: Current Considerations During the COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVE: To offer pragmatic, evidence-informed advice on administering corticosteroids in otolaryngology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, considering therapeutic efficacy, potential adverse effects, susceptibility to COVID-19, and potential effects on efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and guideline databases. REVIEW METHODS: Guideline search strategies, supplemented by database searches on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (Bell's palsy), sinonasal polyposis, laryngotracheal disorders, head and neck oncology, and pediatric otolaryngology, prioritizing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and COVID-19-specific findings. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) reduce long-term morbidity in individuals with SSNHL and Bell's palsy, reduce acute laryngotracheal edema, and have benefit in perioperative management for some procedures. Topical or locally injected corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. SCSs have not shown long-term benefit for sinonasal disorders. SCSs are not a contraindication to vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that these vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: SCS use for SSNHL, Bell's palsy, laryngotracheal edema, and perioperative care should follow prepandemic standards. Local or topical corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. Whether SCSs attenuate response to vaccination against COVID-19 or increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Immunosuppression may lower vaccine efficacy, so immunocompromised patients should adhere to recommended infection control practices. COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines is safe for immunocompromised patients.

COVID-19 Testing in the Era of Modern Neurosurgery: Mitigating Risk in Our Vulnerable Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness identified as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a pandemic illness that has changed the face of healthcare. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, patients have continued to require neurosurgical interventions, and the endoscopic endonasal approach for surgery has continued to be a mainstay treatment of pituitary tumors and anterior skull base lesions. METHODS: We sought to highlight the current lack of recommendations regarding testing protocols for neurosurgical patients. RESULTS: We implemented a novel testing protocol for our patient populations at increased risk and have proposed a model that can be used at other institutions to mitigate the risk of complications associated with some forms of COVID-19 testing. CONCLUSION: Patients with anterior skull base defects may be at risk with current COVID-19 testing protocols, and may benefit from alternative specimen collection strategies.

Diagnosing odontogenic sinusitis: An international multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis, and often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers to make the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to develop international multidisciplinary consensus on diagnosing ODS. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used to assess for expert consensus on diagnosing bacterial ODS. A multidisciplinary panel of 17 authors with ODS expertise from 8 countries (8 otolaryngologists, 9 dental specialists) was assembled. Each author completed 2 of 3 surveys (2 specialty-specific, and 1 for all authors). Thirty-seven clinical statements were created, focusing on 4 important diagnostic components: suspecting ODS; confirming sinusitis in ODS; confirming different dental pathologies causing ODS; and multidisciplinary collaborative aspects of diagnosing ODS. Target audiences were all otolaryngologists and dental providers. RESULTS: Of the 37 clinical statements, 36 reached consensus or strong consensus, and 1 reached no consensus. Strong consensus was reached that certain clinical and microbiologic features should arouse suspicion for ODS, and that multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is generally required to diagnose ODS. To diagnose ODS, otolaryngologists should confirm sinusitis mainly based on nasal endoscopic findings of middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps, and dental providers should confirm dental pathology based on clinical examination and dental imaging. CONCLUSION: Based on multidisciplinary international consensus, diagnosing ODS generally requires otolaryngologists to confirm sinusitis, and dental providers to confirm maxillary odontogenic pathology. Importantly, both dental providers and otolaryngologists should suspect ODS based on certain clinical features, and refer patients to appropriate providers for disease confirmation.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. METHODS: ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. RESULTS: ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. CONCLUSION: This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

Management of odontogenic sinusitis: multidisciplinary consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can present a therapeutic dilemma because multiple treatment strategies have been reported. ODS review articles have been published, but they have lacked multidisciplinary collaboration and an evidence-based methodology. The purpose of this article was to perform an evidence-based review of ODS management options, and develop a multidisciplinary consensus statement on ODS management options. METHODS: An evidence-based review of dental and medical literature on ODS management was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases up to December 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-English-language articles, case series with fewer than 10 patients, fungal sinusitis, and studies that did not report treatment success rates. Because aggregate levels of evidence for recommendations were no higher than level C, a clinical consensus statement was conducted using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review on the following ODS management options: dental treatment alone or combined with ESS for various dental pathologies, and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) alone for dental implant-related ODS. Strong consensus was achieved for 9 of the 10 clinical statements, the strongest being the use of shared decision-making for selecting management strategies. No consensus was reached for determining the extent of ESS necessary for uncomplicated ODS. CONCLUSION: Strong consensus was reached that ODS management should involve shared decision-making between the otolaryngologist, dental provider, and patient, where the benefits and risks of dental treatment and ESS are discussed. Higher-quality studies are necessary to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for ODS.

Drug-eluting implants in chronic rhinosinusitis: an evidence-based review with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting implants are becoming increasingly popular in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). A previous attempt to make an evidence-based recommendation was hindered by limited evidence and experience with these implants. Since that time, the body of literature discussing drug-eluting implants has grown rapidly. The objective of this study was to review drug-eluting implants designed for use in the sinonasal cavity through an evidence-based review with recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and gray literature databases from January 1990 through February 2019 to examine drug-eluting implants used in CRS. Benefit-harm assessments, value judgments, and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Study exclusion criteria included studies unavailable in English and non-endoscopic sinus surgeries. All authors agreed on recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the final analysis. Absorbable drug-eluting implants achieved a high aggregate grade of evidence (A), with a recommendation for their use to be considered in carefully selected patients. Nonabsorbable drug-eluting implants were recommended against due to minimal evidence supporting clinical efficacy. Antibiotic and alternative drug-eluting implants lack sufficient evidence for recommendations. CONCLUSION: Absorbable steroid-eluting implants are recommended for carefully selected patients with CRS. Additional research to define appropriate patient selection is needed.

Surgical Field Visualization during Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Comparison of Propofol- vs Desflurane-Based Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if the type of general anesthetic affects bleeding and field visualization during endoscopic sinus surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Academic teaching hospital and Veterans Affairs hospital in the United States. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to 1 of 3 anesthetic regimens: (1) the volatile anesthetic desflurane (n = 22), (2) intravenous anesthesia with propofol (n = 25), or (3) a combination of propofol and desflurane (n = 23). Intravenous remifentanil was titrated to decrease the mean arterial pressure to 60 to 70 mm Hg but not ≥30% from baseline. Surgical bleeding scores were recorded along with bleeding rates and hemodynamic parameters, including cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance through pulse contour analysis from a radial arterial line. Statistics: multiple comparison tests and regression analyses; α = .05. RESULTS: There were no differences in bleeding rate (median, 0.58, 0.85, 0.57 mL min-1), bleeding score (2.1, 2.0, 2.0), surgery duration (79, 81, 86 minutes), extubation time (9, 7, 8 minutes), recovery room time (65, 61, 61 minutes), or any hemodynamic parameters among groups 1 through 3, respectively. Group 1 required lower remifentanil infusions than group 2 (0.11 vs 0.26 µg kg-1 min-1; P = .01). The bleeding score correlated positively with height (P = .014) and the Lund-MacKay score (P = .013). Bilateral vs unilateral surgery led to longer surgery duration (P = .001) and recovery room time (P = .004). CONCLUSION: When remifentanil is used for controlled hypotension, propofol has no advantage over desflurane to improve surgical field visualization during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Odontogenic Sinusitis: Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment.

Odontogenic sinusitis is a unique cause of sinus disease that deserves special consideration. An astute clinician can elicit historical findings such as recent dental work, and symptoms such as unilateral facial pain and foul drainage, despite a relatively benign oral cavity examination. Otolaryngologists and dental professionals who care for these patients must be able to interpret imaging studies for dental disorder such as periapical abscesses and periodontal disease. Treatment is frequently some combination of antibiotic therapy, dental procedures, and endoscopic sinus surgery. More prospective studies are needed to determine the best approach to caring for this patient population.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis).

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the great majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients, patients with hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function, are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the working group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based upon their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include 1 or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT). (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Appropriateness Criteria for Surgery in the Management of Adult Recurrent Acute Rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is frequently performed for recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). Appropriate indications for surgery among patients with RARS have not yet been rigorously determined. The objective of this study was to define appropriateness criteria for ESS in the management of adult RARS. STUDY DESIGN: Application of RAND-UCLA appropriateness methodology. METHODS: A panel of nine multidisciplinary experts in RARS was formed to evaluate RARS scenarios generated from current evidence. The panel completed two rounds of a modified Delphi-ranking process and a teleconference. RESULTS: A total of 32 clinical scenarios were ranked in each round. For adult patients with RARS, ESS can appropriately be offered as a treatment option when patients experience ≥ four annual episodes, and there is confirmation of at least one episode via computed tomography or nasal endoscopy, and the patient and clinician jointly participate in shared decision making, and the patient has either failed a trial of topical nasal steroids or experienced RARS-related productivity loss. CONCLUSIONS: This study has defined appropriateness criteria for ESS as a management option for adult patients with RARS. These criteria are intended to represent a minimum threshold for which ESS should be considered in the treatment of RARS and do not suggest that all patients who meet these criteria should undergo surgery. These criteria may serve as a baseline set of indications for ESS in patients with RARS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:37-44, 2019.

Total intravenous versus inhaled anesthesia in transsphenoidal tumor surgery.

PURPOSE: Visualization of the surgical field is essential for patient safety during endoscopic transsphenoidal tumor surgery. In this retrospective chart review and data analysis of patients undergoing endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of pituitary tumors under general anesthesia we sought to determine if total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil leads to decreased bleeding, surgical duration, time to extubation and/or length of stay in the recovery room compared to inhaled anesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane. METHODS: After IRB approval, chart reviews of 193 American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 to 3 patients were conducted who had undergone transsphenoidal, endonasal resections of pituitary tumors under total intravenous or inhaled anesthesia at an academic teaching hospital in the United States over a seven-year time period. One hundred four patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were further reviewed. Primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss; secondary outcomes were surgical duration, time to extubation and length of stay in the recovery room. RESULTS: Gender, age, and Lund-Mackay-Scores were equally distributed between the two anesthetic groups. We found no significant effect of the anesthetic technique, age, gender, or Lund Mackay score on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The only significant predictor for recovery room length of stay was intraoperative blood loss. CONCLUSION: Our study shows no evidence that total intravenous anesthesia is superior to inhaled anesthesia or vice versa during endoscopic transsphenoidal sinus surgery with regard to relevant clinical outcome parameters.

Odontogenic sinusitis: A review of the current literature.

OBJECTIVES: To present current literature on the topic of odontogenic sinusitis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed literature search for odontogenic sinusitis. RESULTS: Odontogenic sinusitis is an inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses that is the result of dental pathology, most often resulting from prior dentoalveolar procedures, infections of maxillary dentition, or maxillary dental trauma. Infections are often polymicrobial with an anaerobe-predominant microbiome requiring special considerations for antimicrobial therapy. Medical management and treatment of the underlying dental pathology remains a critical initial step in the treatment of odontogenic sinusitis, however recent literature suggests that a significant portion of patients may require endoscopic sinus surgery for successful disease resolution. CONCLUSIONS: This review describes the essential epidemiological and etiological factors, relevant clinical findings and diagnostic modalities, microbiologic and antimicrobial considerations, as well as the medical and surgical treatment approaches commonly utilized for the management of odontogenic sinusitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.