Assessing the safety and tolerability of rhinologic surgery under local anesthetic: an 8-year retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Office-based rhinologic procedures (OBRP) have become widely available in North America due to technological advances and appropriate patient selection. Nevertheless, the literature exploring the safety of these procedures remains limited. The objective of this study was to further evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of these procedures with a more robust sample size to allow for capture of rare events. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent OBRP from May 2015 to March 2023. Information regarding patient demographics, the indication for surgery, wait time, tolerability, intra- and postoperative complications, need for revisions, and type of revision (if applicable) was recorded. RESULTS: 1208 patients underwent OBRP during the study period. No patients were excluded. These included turbinoplasties (35%), endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESS) (26%), septoplasties (15%), nasal fracture reductions (7%), and a variety of other procedures. For ESS procedures, the anterior ethmoids and the maxillary sinuses were the most common sinuses treated. 1.1% of procedures were aborted prior to completion. The post-operative complication rate was 3.2%, with 2 major complications (significant bleeding and sepsis) encountered. The mean follow-up overall was 11 months and for ESS it was 15.8 months. CONCLUSION: Office-based rhinologic procedures are well tolerated and safe for the appropriate patient and associated with shorter wait-times as well as avoidance of general anesthesia. The complication rates are similar to or lower than previously reported rates for rhinologic surgeries done in the operating room. The low rates of revision surgery also demonstrate the efficacy of these procedures.

Epistaxis first-aid: a multi-center knowledge assessment study among medical workers.

PURPOSE: To assess the knowledge and confidence level regarding the basic first-aid for treating epistaxis among medical staff, including nurses and physicians across various medical disciplines. The study focused three aspects of first aid management: location of digital pressure, head position and duration of pressure. METHODS: The study involved 597 participants, categorized into five groups according to their specialties: emergency medicine, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare. A paper-based multiple-choice questionnaire assessed knowledge of managing epistaxis. Correct answers were determined from literature review and expert consensus. RESULTS: Most medical staff showed poor knowledge regarding the preferred site for applying digital pressure in epistaxis management. For head position, pediatricians and internal medicine physicians were most accurate (79.4% and 64.8%, respectively, p < 0.01), and nurses from the emergency department outperformed nurses from other disciplines; internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare (61.1%, 41.5%, 43.5%, 60%, 45.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). While most medical staff were unfamiliar with the recommended duration for applying pressure on the nose, pediatricians and community clinic physicians were most accurate (47.1% and 46.0%, respectively, p < 0.01), while ER physicians were least accurate (14.9%, p < 0.01). Interestingly, a negative correlation was found between years of work experience and reported confidence level in managing epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a significant lack of knowledge concerning epistaxis first-aid among medical staff, particularly physicians in emergency departments. This finding highlights the pressing need for education and training to enhance healthcare workers' knowledge in managing epistaxis.

Telemedicine as an environmental ally - The social, financial, and environmental impact of virtual care in the otolaryngology clinic.

PURPOSE: Synchronous virtual care rapidly expanded worldwide amid the COVID-19 pandemic to provide remote medical assessment, minimizing contact and disease transmission risk. Despite its benefits, such an abrupt expansion has shed light on the need to address patients' level of satisfaction with this service delivery. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' satisfaction, travel cost, productivity loss, and CO2 emissions involved with synchronous virtual care and in-person assessments in rhinology and sleep apnea clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective comparative study included patients managed via virtual care, or in-person clinic visit at St. Joseph Hospital, London, Canada, from December/2020 to April/2021, with rhinology pathologies or sleep apnoea. Patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ-18) scores were assessed. The overall scores of respondents were recorded including cost implications. RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were invited, 28.5 % responded (n = 93). 33 virtual care (age 48 ± 6), and 60 in-person (age 51 ± 19). There was no statistical significance in PSQ-18 scores. However, under a diagnosis-based subgroup analysis, allergic rhinitis patients on virtual care presented a significantly lower PSQ-18 scores on the general satisfaction (3.28 vs. 4.25, p = 0.04). The time spent with the doctor was directly correlated with age for patients seen in-person (r = 0.27; p = 0.037). The estimated loss of productivity for the Virtual care group was CAD 12, patients assessed in-person presented an average loss of productivity about six times higher (CAD 74 ± 40). CONCLUSIONS: Overall patients' satisfaction did not depend on whether they were seen virtually or in-person. However, time spent with the doctor contributed to higher satisfaction levels, but only among older patients who were seen in person. Nonetheless, allergic rhinitis patients seemed less satisfied with the virtual care option. Virtual care demonstrates economic benefits.

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.

How deep do you go? Clinical prediction of nasopharyngeal depth based on facial measurements.

Nasopharyngeal depth (ND) prediction is clinically relevant in performing medical procedures, and in enhancing technique accuracy and patient safety. Nonetheless, clinical predictive variables and normative data in adults remain limited. This study aimed to determine normative data on ND and its correlation to external facial measurements. A multicenter cross-sectional study obtained data from adults presenting to otolaryngology clinics at five sites in Canada, Italy, and Spain. Investigators compared endoscopically measured depth from the nasal sill (soft tissue between the nasal ala and columella) to nasopharynx along the nasal floor to the "curved distance from the alar-facial groove along the face to the tragus" and "distance from the tragus to a plane perpendicular to the philtrum." When sinus computed tomography images were available, the distance from the nasopharynx to the nasal sill was also collected. 371 patients participated in the study (41% women; 51 years old, SD 18). Average ND was 9.4 cm (SD 0.86) and 10.1 cm (SD 0.9) for women and men, respectively (p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.46-0.86). Perpendicular distance was strongly correlated to ND (r = 0.775; p < 0.001), with an average underestimation of 0.1 cm (SD 0.65; 95% CI 0.06-0.2). The equation: ND (cm) = perpendicular distance*0.773 + 2.344, generated from 271 randomly selected participants, and validated on 100 participants, resulted in a 0.03 cm prediction error (SD 0.61; 95% CI -0.08-0.16). Nasopharyngeal depth can be approximated by the distance from the tragus to a plane perpendicular to the philtrum.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Treatment efficacy by comorbidity and blood eosinophil count.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab reduced nasal polyp (NP) size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy of mepolizumab in patients from SYNAPSE grouped by comorbid asthma, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), and baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). METHODS: SYNAPSE, a randomized, double-blind, 52-week study (NCT03085797), included patients with severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with NP eligible for surgery despite intranasal corticosteroid treatment. Patients received 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo plus standard of care for 52 weeks. Coprimary end points were change in total endoscopic NP score (week 52) and nasal obstruction visual analog scale score (weeks 49-52). Subgroup analyses by comorbid asthma and AERD status, and post hoc by BEC, were exploratory. RESULTS: Analyses included 407 patients (289 with asthma; 108 with AERD; 371 and 278 with BEC counts ≥150 or ≥300 cells/µL, respectively). The proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1-point improvement from baseline in NP score was higher with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid diseases (asthma: 52.9% vs 29.5%; AERD: 51.1% vs 20.6%) and baseline BEC subgroups (<150 cells/µL: 55.0% vs 31.3%; ≥150 cells/µL: 49.5% vs 28.1%; <300 cells/µL: 50.7% vs 29.0%; ≥300 cells/µL: 50.4% vs 28.1%). A similar trend was observed in patients without comorbid asthma or AERD. More patients had more than 3-point improvement in nasal obstruction VAS score with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced polyp size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP regardless of the presence of comorbid asthma or AERD.

Evaluation of septal perforation size using a novel measuring device.

BACKGROUND: Nasal septal perforations can be managed with a septal button prosthesis. While they do not restore the physiological function of the septal mucosa, they are able to improve laminar nasal airflow. With the development of septal buttons sized specifically to perforations, accurate measurement of perforations has become more important for patient satisfaction and comfort. This task can be difficult to accomplish in the clinical setting. In this study, 2 new instruments developed to measure septal perforations were evaluated for accuracy and ease of use. METHODS: Two types of measuring devices ("sizers") were created via 3D printing. One type included six serial, progressively sized instruments (serial sizers) and the other included two instruments with several size gradations (graded sizers). Septal perforations of varying sizes were surgically created in five fresh-frozen cadaver heads. Using a headlight and nasal speculum, 15 otolaryngology trainees and consultants were asked to measure the perforations (length × height) via four different methods: "eyeball" estimation, a ruler, the serial sizers, and the graded sizers. They were also asked to evaluate the methods themselves. An accurate measurement was defined as ± 1 mm of the true measurement. A combination of Chi-square analysis and ANOVA was used to assess the accuracy and ease of use of the four methods. RESULTS: Chi-square analysis showed that the sizers were more accurate than the two traditional methods (eyeball and ruler) for measuring perforation length (73% vs. 44%, p = 4.8 × 10-7) and height (71% vs. 50%, p = 0.0003). ANOVA showed that the eyeball method overestimated perforation length significantly more than the other three methods (p = 0.002), and was also significantly less accurate than the other three methods (p < 0.001). Chi-square analysis did not show any correlation between participant training experience and measurement accuracy for any of the three methods. Participant comments and scores demonstrated a clear preference for the two sizers over the traditional methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two novel sizers studied here were significantly more accurate and easier to use than traditional methods for measuring nasal septal perforations. With broader implementation and study of these devices, there is potential to improve patient care surrounding septal perforations.

Results of a national web-based survey on the SARS-CoV-2 infectious state of otorhinolaryngologists in Germany.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 is detected on the mucosa of the upper airways to a high degree. In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, otorhinolaryngologists (ORL) are assumed to be at high risk due to close contact with the mucosa of the upper airways. No data are yet available providing evidence that ORLs have an increased risk of infection. METHODS: German ORLs were invited via e-mail through the German Society of ORL, Head and Neck Surgery and the German ENT Association to participate in a web-based survey about infection with SARS-CoV-2 and development of COVID-19. Data of infections and concomitant parameters in German ORLs were collected and compared to the total number of infections in Germany. RESULTS: Out of 6383 German ORLs, 970 (15%) participated. 54 ORLs reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared to the total population of Germany, ORLs have a relative risk of 3.67 (95% CI 2.82; 4.79) of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Domestic quarantine was conducted in 96.3% of cases. Two individuals were admitted to hospital without intensive care. No casualties were reported. In 31 cases, the source of infection was not identifiable whereas 23 had a clear medical aetiology: infected patients: n = 5, 9.26%; medical staff: n = 13, 14.1%. 9.26% (n = 5) of the identified cases were related to contact to infected family members (n = 3), closer neighbourhood (n = 1) or general public (n = 1). There was no identified increased risk of infection due to performing surgery. CONCLUSION: German ORLs have an almost 3.7-fold risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 compared to the population baseline level. Appropriate protection appears to be necessary for this occupational group.

Sinus and anterior skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review, synthesis and YO-IFOS position.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant confusion about healthcare providers' and patients' pandemic-specific risks related to surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize recommendations for sinus and anterior skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus and Embase were searched by two independent otolaryngologists from the Young Otolaryngologists of IFOS (YO-IFOS) for studies dealing with sinus and skull base surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. The review also included unpublished guidelines edited by Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery or Neurosurgery societies. Perioperative factors were investigated including surgical indications, preoperative testing of patients, practical management in operating rooms, technical aspects of surgery and postoperative management. The literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The criteria for considering studies or guidelines for the review were based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing and setting (PICOTS) framework. RESULTS: 15 International publications met inclusion criteria. Five references were guidelines from national societies. All guidelines recommended postponing elective surgeries. An algorithm is proposed that classifies endonasal surgical procedures into three groups based on the risk of postponing surgery. Patients' COVID-19 status should be preoperatively assessed. Highest level of personal protective equipment (PPE) is recommended, and the use of high-speed powered devices should be avoided. Face-to-face postoperative visits must be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Sinus and skull base surgeries are high-risk procedures due to potential aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Protection of health care workers by decreasing exposure and optimizing the use of PPE is essential with sinus and anterior skull base surgery.

Follow-up of a national web-based survey on the SARS-CoV-2 infectious state of otorhinolaryngologists in Germany.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV­2 pandemic has affected the health and practice of otorhinolaryngologists (ORLs) for over 1 year. Follow-up data of a national survey with German ORLs were evaluated regarding differences between the two waves of the pandemic. METHODS: As in the initial survey, German ORLs were addressed via e­mail through the German Society of ORL, Head and Neck Surgery and the German ENT Association. All ORLs afflicted with SARS-CoV­2 were invited to participate in a web-based survey. General data on infections and concomitant parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Since the start of the pandemic, 129 ORLs reported testing positive for SARS-CoV­2 in Germany. The ORLs infected during the first wave had a relative risk (RR) of 4.07 (95% CI: 3.20; 5.19) of contracting SARS-CoV­2. During the second wave, the RR decreased to 0.35 (95% CI: 0.28; 0.45). The availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased from the first to the second wave along with an increased perception of protection in the professional environment. The source of infection shifted from infections via medical staff during the first wave to patients and household exposure during the second wave. Regular medical practice was resumed by clinicians and general practitioners in the second wave. Nevertheless, a proportionally lower infection rate was observed compared with the German population as a whole. CONCLUSION: The data reflect a unique long-term survey of ORLs during the pandemic. Differences in the source of infection were seen between the first and second wave, confirming the need for appropriate PPE for medical professionals working in high-risk environments. Further strategies to reduce the risk of infection include consistent testing for SARS-CoV­2 in healthcare professionals, patients, and the general public as well as vaccination of high-risk medical groups.