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.

Endoscopic approaches to the orbit: Transnasal and transorbital, a retrospective case series.

Introduction: Orbital pathologies requiring surgery are traditionally treated by open approach with different techniques depending on the lesion location. Recently, minimally invasive endoscopic approaches, such as the Endoscopic Endonasal Approach (EEA) and the Endoscopic Transorbital Approach (ETA) have been introduced in orbital surgery. Research question: The purpose of this study is to report the combined experience of the Neurosurgical and Ear-Nose-Throat (ENT) Units in the endoscopic approach of orbital pathologies. Material and methods: We retrospectively retrieved data on patients treated at our Institution between 2016 and 2021 with endoscopic approach for orbital pathologies. The Clavien-Dindo classification and the Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) Scale have been used to assess complications and cosmetic outcomes. Results: 39 patients met the inclusion criteria. EEA (15 patients) or ETA (20 patients) were chosen to approach the lesions. In three cases we used a combination of endoscopic and anterior orbitotomy and in one patient a combination of EEA + ETA. The type of procedure performed was orbital biopsy (9 cases), orbital decompression (6 cases), subtotal resection of the lesion (STR) (8 cases) and total resection of the lesion (GTR) (16 cases). The more frequent postoperative complications were diplopia (5.1%, with 1 case of permanent diplopia), trigeminal paraesthesia and dysesthesia (5.1%), palpebral edema (17.9%), periorbital ecchymosis (7.7%). Mean follow up time was 21 months (range 2-63 months). Discussion and conclusion: Endoscopic approaches to orbital compartments provide minimally invasive access to every orbital compartment with low complications rate and good cosmetic outcome.

Maxillary Postsurgical Ciliated Cysts (PSCCs): A Series of Three Cases.

Introduction: A postsurgical ciliated cyst (PSCC) is an epithelial cyst that usually develops in the maxilla, although in rare cases, it can affect the mandible or other facial bones. The typical age of diagnosis is 40-50 years, with no gender prevalence, and the mean cyst development occurs approximately 10-15 years following a surgical or traumatic event. Some epithelial respiratory cells can be trapped into the bone tissue during maxillary surgical procedures or maxillary fractures. The pathogenetic mechanism can be attributed to an inflammatory process that stimulates epithelial proliferation, leading to cyst expansion caused by osmotic pressure difference. Methods: This study presents case series involving three surgical ciliated cysts located in the left maxilla, affecting two female patients (aged 49 and 55 years) and one male patient (aged 39 years). In all three cases, symptoms such as pain or swelling were mild and not consistently present. Two cases showed cyst development 10 and 15 years after implant placement, while one case was not associated with any surgical or traumatic event. CT scan identified well-defined unilocular lesions in the maxillary bone in each patient. Results: Histopathological examination of the surgical specimens confirmed the suspected diagnosis of a PSCC of maxilla. The cystic walls consisted of fibrous connective tissue with chronic inflammatory infiltrate, lined exclusively by a thin layer of ciliated pseudostratified columnar epithelium. In the third patient, it was not possible to rule out an unusual radicular cyst. Conclusions: Although PSCCs are not commonly encountered in daily practice, clinicians should consider this possibility including it in the differential diagnosis of odontogenic jaw cysts and benign jaw tumors, particularly in patients who have undergone previous surgeries in the maxillary area.