A case of COVID-19-related necrotic nasal ulceration.

We are reporting a case of a COVID-19-related necrotic nasal ulcer. All other common etiologies were excluded after a full round of investigations. Even though COVID-19 has been known to cause skin ulcers via different mechanisms, this is the first nasal ulcer to be reported in the current literature.

Effect of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and the Distance From the Eye Piece of Surgical Microscope on the Field of Vision; An Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: During the Covid-19 pandemic, otolaryngologists are at risk due to aerosol-generating procedures such as mastoidectomy and need enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE). Eye protection can interfere with the use of a microscope due to a reduction in the field of vision. We aimed to study the effect of PPE on the microsurgical field. METHODS: Five surgeons measured the visual field using digital calipers at different power settings. They were done with no PPE, a surgical mask, FFP3 mask (N99), and with the addition of small goggles, large vistamax goggles, vistamax plus a face shield, and only a face shield. The measurements were repeated with rings of 5 mm increments. We also measured the "eye relief" of the microscope which is the ideal distance for maximum field of view. RESULTS: There was no major reduction of the field with the surgical or FFP3 mask. But even simple goggles reduced the field up to 31.6% and there were progressive reductions of up to 75.7% with large goggles, 76.8% when a face shield was added, and 61.9% when only face shield was used. The distance rings more than 5 mm also affected the field of view.The eye relief of our eyepiece was found to be 15 mm. CONCLUSION: The current PPE eye protection is not compatible with the use of a microscope. There is scope for research into better eye protection. Mitigation strategies including barrier drapes and alternative techniques such as endoscopic surgery or use of exoscopes should also be considered.

A double-blind randomized controlled trial of management of recurrent nosebleeds in children.

BACKGROUND: To establish whether a treatment regimen of silver nitrate cautery and 4 weeks of antiseptic nasal cream is superior to antiseptic cream treatment alone in the management of pediatric epistaxis. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Children with epistaxis and visible anterior septal vessels were invited to participate. Patients were randomized to receive treatment or control. Treatment patients received silver nitrate cautery, followed by antiseptic cream for 4 weeks. Control patients received sham cautery followed by antiseptic cream for 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were randomized and results were available for 93 (85%). Of those receiving cautery, 21 (45.7%) of 46 had no bleeding in the 4 weeks before follow-up. Of those receiving only antiseptic cream 14 (29.8%) of 47 had no bleeding. (chi(2) = 2.49; P = 0.114). More children in the active treatment group had an improvement in their symptoms compared with controls (42 of 46; 91.3%) in the treatment group vs 33 of 47 (70.2%) controls (chi(2) = 6.626; P = 0.01; relative risk reduction = 71 percent, number needed to treat = 4.7). CONCLUSION: When using subjective improvement in symptoms as the outcome measure, silver nitrate cautery with antiseptic cream twice daily for 4 weeks appears to give a small but statistically significant benefit when compared to antiseptic cream alone.