Donaldson, Angela M.

Objectives To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non‐FDA‐approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the pediatric population. Data Source Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategy, including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles. Review Methods A structured literature search was conducted. Extracted data included age, population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and growth velocity adverse events. Results A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as nasal sprays and drops. There were no persistent abnormalities noted in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Growth velocity reduction was reported in 3 of 10 randomized trials. Meta‐analysis of epistaxis and headache showed no significant difference in the incidence of headache or epistaxis when FDA‐approved INCSs were compared to placebo, with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.77‐1.63; P =. 56) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60‐1.18; P =. 32), respectively. Meta‐analysis was not performed for growth velocity, HPA axis suppression, and ocular change. Conclusions INCSs in FDA‐approved routes of administration are generally safe to use in the pediatric population. Use of non‐FDA‐approved INCS drops may increase risk of iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome. Growth velocity reduction, HPA axis suppression, and visual changes due to INCS are uncommon.

Basilar invagination is a challenging dilemma that neurosurgeons may face. Herein, we present a case of a 65-year-old female with a history of rheumatoid arthritis and status post a previous C4–7 ACDF who presented to our clinic with progressive weakness in her bilateral upper and lower extremities. Imaging revealed basilar invagination. She underwent an endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy followed by an occiput–C6 fusion. We present the endonasal portion of the procedure and have highlighted the technical nuances of this approach. Our goal is to provide better insight into this surgical strategy when dealing with basilar invagination. The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/aeMbvI_zYQA

ObjectivesTo address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA‐approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population.Data SourceSystematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.Review MethodsA structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment‐related adverse events.ResultsA total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta‐analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA‐approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13‐2.14; P =. 007).ConclusionsOverall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non‐FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta‐analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

Background Endoscopic resection (ER) for uncommon sinonasal malignancies (SNMs) has been reported to confer superior surgical outcomes compared to open resection (OR) based on indirect comparisons of limited evidence. Objective The aim of this study was to pool all direct comparative studies in the literature to validate this potential superior association. Methods Systematic searches of 7 electronic databases from their inception to April 2019 were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There were 1001 articles identified for screening. Outcomes of interest were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MD) and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results There were 10 studies included in this meta-analysis, with 900 SNM patients in total where ER and OR were utilized in 399 (44%) and 501 (56%) cases, respectively. Compared to OR, random-effects (RE) modeling indicated ER resulted in statistically comparable complications (RR = 0.68; P-effect = .12) and recurrence (RR = 0.84; P-effect = .35). ER was associated with significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) compared to OR (MD = −2.9 days; P-effect <.01). Conclusions The use of ER to manage SNM was associated with significantly favorable reduction in LOS compared to OR. However, with respect to other surgical outcomes and recurrence, the current literature does not indicate either ER or OR as statistically superior. Therefore, until greater validation of these associations can be proven, expectations that ER for SNMs confers superior surgical outcomes compared to OR should be tempered.