Myiasis of the ear: a review with entomological aspects for the otolaryngologist.

OBJECTIVE: Myiasis is the infestation of live humans (or animals) by fly larvae. Although the diagnosis is relatively straightforward, how to best treat aural myiasis has not been well described in the literature. This comprehensive literature review, therefore, was performed to identify current management principles in aural myiasis, especially with regard to the causative fly family. In addition, we explore the possible relationship between aural myiasis and the highly lethal intracranial myiasis. DATA SOURCES: Literature review using the Medline database (PubMed), Scopus, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: Manuscripts published in the English language between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2012, were included. RESULTS: Forty-five cases of aural myiasis were reported in 34 manuscripts. Most cases were caused by species of the Sarcophagidae family (n=26/45, 57.8%). The majority of cases (n=40/45, 88.9%) were successfully treated with simple aural toilet and topical treatments alone. No deaths were reported and no cases were seen in conjunction with intracranial myiasis. CONCLUSION: Aural myiasis is a rare but benign fly infestation of the ear, most commonly by species of the Sarcophagidae family. The overwhelming majority of cases can be successfully managed without the need for surgical intervention.

De-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas are a distinct subgroup of tumours that may have a better prognosis than traditional tobacco/alcohol-related disease. Iatrogenic complications, associated with conventional practice, are estimated to cause mortality of approximately 2% and high morbidity. As a result, clinicians are actively investigating the de-escalation of treatment protocols for disease with a proven viral aetiology. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the available evidence regarding de-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 25 June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating de-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated, locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Specific de-escalation categories were: 1) bioradiotherapy (experimental) versus chemoradiotherapy (control); 2) radiotherapy (experimental) versus chemoradiotherapy (control); and 3) low-dose (experimental) versus standard-dose radiotherapy (control). The outcomes of interest were overall and disease-specific survival, treatment-related morbidity, quality of life and cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently selected studies from the search results and extracted data. We planned to use the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any completed randomised controlled trials that could be included in the current version of this systematic review. We did, however, identify seven ongoing trials that will meet our inclusion criteria. These studies will report from 2014 onwards. We excluded 30 studies on methodological grounds (seven randomised trials with post hoc analysis by human papillomavirus status, 11 prospective trials and 12 ongoing studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence for, or against, de-escalation of treatment for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma. Future trials should be multicentre to ensure adequate power. Adverse events, morbidity associated with treatment, quality of life outcomes and cost analyses should be reported in a standard format to facilitate comparison with other studies.

To Scan or Not to Scan-A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Clinical Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Audiometric Protocols for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening of Vestibular Schwannomas.

INTRODUCTION: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are a rare cause of asymmetrical hearing loss, and routine screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be costly. At present, no consensus exists on what qualifies as "asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss" (ASNHL) and when a patient should be referred for screening. OBJECTIVES: 1) Evaluation of published audiometric protocols on the basis of sensitivity and specificity when applied to local clinical cohort of patients with ASNHL; 2) determination of clinical risks of missing VS and potential wastes in screening "radiologically normal" cases; 3) assessment of the cost of MRI screening. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with chart review in a 2-year (2015-2016) cohort of 1059 patients who underwent MRI screening and audiometry indicating sensorineural hearing loss. Fourteen previously published audiometric protocols were assessed for their sensitivity and specificity in guiding radiological diagnosis of VS, and cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: 6/14 audiometric protocols had a sensitivity greater than 85%. Diagnostic specificity ranged from 22.91 to 82.76%, clinical risks from 0 to 50%, and potential wastes from 17.24 to 77.09%. Average annual cost of screening was £64,069. Application of proposed local screening protocol had a projected cost saving of 32.19%. Cost of screening patients that benefit from treatment was compared with a utility function that quantified expected benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Development of an easy-to-apply algorithm incorporating high-sensitivity audiometric protocols may result in significant cost saving, with minimal clinical risk of missing cases. There was disparity between screening costs and monetary "benefit" of hearing.

Acute rhinosinusitis in adults: an update on current management.

Acute rhinosinusitis is a common disease with worldwide prevalence. It is a significant burden on the health services. It is most commonly caused by viruses and is self-limiting in nature. The diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis is clinical and sinus radiography is not indicated routinely. Most cases of acute rhinosinusitis are treated symptomatically. However, symptoms may persist beyond 10 days when secondary bacterial infection prevails. Antibiotics are reserved for moderate or severe cases or when there is development of complications of acute rhinosinusitis. This paper provides an update on the current management of acute rhinosinusitis.

A randomised controlled trial comparing Triadcortyl with 10% glycerine-ichthammol in the initial treatment of severe acute otitis externa.

Acute otitis externa is a common clinical condition accounting for a large proportion of patients attending the otolaryngology department, although milder cases are often managed in primary care. Treatment of the most severe forms of otitis externa involves aural toilet, followed by the application of a topical preparation, commonly in the form of an ear canal dressing. A prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the efficacy of 10% glycerine-ichthammol (GI) solution and Triadcortyl (TAC) ointment, both applied as ear canal dressings, in the initial management of severe acute otitis externa. A total of 64 patients were studied. Both treatment modalities were proven efficacious in the treatment of severe acute otitis externa. Although there was a statistically significant improvement of pain parameters in the TAC group, we found no significant differences in clinical findings between the two groups. Therefore, it is recommended that GI dressing can be used instead of an antibiotic dressing as an initial treatment of severe acute otitis externa on the basis of cost, avoidance of resistance and toxicity.