Efficacy of auriculotherapy in the control of pain, edema, and trismus following surgical extraction of the lower third molars: a split-mouth, randomized, placebo-controlled, and triple-blind study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this split-mouth, randomized, placebo-controlled, and triple-blind study was to evaluate whether auriculotherapy had any effect on the post-operative course after the extraction of third molars in terms of the control of pain, edema, and trismus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 42 patients (84 teeth) who had undergone a surgical extraction of the lower third molars. In each patient, the two extractions were randomly assigned to two study groups. In the therapy group, the patients underwent auriculotherapy with vaccaria seeds applied with patches in 6 ear points. In the control group, the patches were applied, without seeds, to the same ear points. After the extraction, the patients were asked to stimulate the ear points three times a day and whenever they felt pain. The patients were asked to keep a diary in which they assessed their pain by means of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for 8 days. Edema and trismus were assessed 1, 2, 3, and 8 days after surgery. RESULTS: The differences between the two groups were statistically significant at the 12-h control (auriculotherapy group (AG) VAS 5.5 [IQR 4.25-6.75], placebo group (PG) VAS 6 [IQR 5-8], p = 0.040), after 24 h (AG VAS 5 [IQR 4-6], PG VAS 6 [IQR 4.25-7], p = 0.024), after 2 days (AG VAS 4 [IQR 3-5], PG VAS 4.5 [IQR 4-6], p = 0.044), and after 3 days (AG VAS 3 [IQR 0-5], PG VAS 4 [IQR 3-5], p = 0.024). Throughout the observation period, the AG took a significantly lower number of painkillers than the PG (AG 6 [IQR 4.25-7]; PG 8 [IQR 8-9], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the levels of edema and trismus between the two groups throughout the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of the present study, auriculotherapy can be considered as a cost-effective adjuvant pain reliever treatment in patients undergoing an extraction of the lower third molars.

Safety and Feasibility of Hypnosis-Induced Sleep Endoscopy in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients.

BACKGROUND: Hypnosis was never used in sleep endoscopy assessment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and patient satisfaction of hypnosis-induced sleep endoscopy (HISE). METHODS: From January to July 2021, 24 adults with moderate-to-severe OSAS at the polysomnography were included in the HISE protocol. The following outcomes were evaluated by the otolaryngologist and the hypnotherapist: safety, feasibility, and performance. The patient outcomes were assessed through a patient-reported outcome questionnaire assessing hypnosis acceptance, stress, anxiety, nasofibroscopy examination pain, and discomfort. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the evaluations (16 males). The mean age of patients was 50.8 years. The nasofibroscopy was well-tolerated with low levels of stress during the HISE. Otolaryngologist adequately completed the VOTE scoring in 22 patients (95.7%). Hypnosis was ineffective in one patient because he felt pain during the nasofibroscopy procedure due to an important septal deviation. The hypnotherapist reported adequate satisfaction outcomes, with better results for trance compliance compared to other steps. There were no adverse effects or complications. The percentage of snoring was negatively associated with the level of consciousness during hypnosis (p = 0.012). The easiness of nasofibroscopy was positively associated with the levels of muscle relaxation (p = 0.036) and consciousness (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HISE is an effective alternative approach for the work-up of OSAS. Future controlled studies are needed to compare HISE with drug-induced sleep endoscopy and assess the cost-effective outcomes of both approaches.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps management in the biologic therapy era: an international YO-IFOS survey.

PURPOSE: To investigate the consistency between the international guidelines recommendations and worldwide standard practices regarding diagnostic work-up and follow-up strategies for managing patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) in the era of monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the Rhinology section of the Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (Yo-IFOS) included items regarding the management of CRSwNP patients, monoclonal prescription, surgical and follow-up procedures, awareness of biologicals availability, and other relevant clinical practices. The online survey was directed to otolaryngologists and distributed in Europe, North America, South America, and the Middle East through otolaryngological and/or rhinological societies. RESULTS: A total of 202 responses were analyzed; the mean participants' age was 45 ± 11 (73% men and 27% women), and 31% were from the United States, Canada 19%, Europe 45%, Middle East and South America 5%. Only 60% of the respondents declared using validated symptoms and endoscopic score systems in their clinical practice. Several practice discrepancies emerged in our cohort, including preferred surgical approach, prescription of preoperative oral steroids, and perioperative antibiotics (59% and 58%, respectively), as well as divergent awareness levels of available biologics for CRSwNP worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: CRSwNP needs a complex and time-consuming assessment, according to the latest guidelines. There seems to be a gap between these recommendations and the real-world data, which should draw more attention to bringing them into uniform clinical practice in the near future.