Yim, Michael

AbstractObjectiveCritical components of the nasal endoscopic examination have not been definitively established for either the normal examination or for clinical disorders. This study aimed to identify concordance among rhinologists regarding the importance of examination findings for various nasal pathologies.Study DesignA consortium of 19 expert rhinologists across the United States was asked to rank the importance of findings on nasal endoscopy for 5 different sinonasal symptom presentations.SettingAn online questionnaire was distributed in July 2023.MethodsThe questionnaire utilized JotForm® software and featured 5 cases with a set of 4 identical questions per case, each covering a common indication for nasal endoscopy. Rankings were synthesized into Normalized Attention Scores (NASs) and Weighted Normalized Attention Scores (W‐NASs) to represent the perceived importance of each feature, scaled from 0 to 1.ResultsGeneral concordance was found for examination findings on nasal endoscopy within each case. The perceived features of importance differed between cases based on clinical presentation. For instance, in evaluating postnasal drip, the middle meatus was selected as the most important structure to examine (NAS, 0.73), with mucus selected as the most important abnormal finding (W‐NAS, 0.66). The primary feature of interest for mucus was whether it was purulent or not (W‐NAS, 0.67). Similar analyses were performed for features in each case.ConclusionThe implicit framework existing among rhinologists may help standardize examinations and improve diagnostic accuracy, augment the instruction of trainees, and inform the development of artificially intelligent algorithms to enhance clinical decision‐making during nasal endoscopy.

Abstract Background A wide variety of techniques for the surgical repair of nasal septal perforations (NSPs) have been described. Surgical management of NSPs can be broadly divided into open versus endonasal approaches, with additional variables involving unilateral or bilateral flaps, use of grafts, and placement of splints. The objective of this study was to compare surgical approaches and their outcomes. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus databases were examined for patients undergoing NSP repair. English‐language studies reporting surgical management of patients with the primary diagnosis of NSP were included. Outcome measures of interest included perforation size, surgical approach characteristics, and success rate defined as complete closure assessed by surgeon postoperatively. The quality of articles was assessed with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) criteria. A random‐effects model was used to calculate pooled proportions for the different outcomes. Results The electronic database search yielded 1076 abstracts for review. A total of 64 articles met the inclusion criteria, with 1591 patients: 1127 (71%) underwent an endonasal approach and 464 (29%) an open approach. The median (range) MINORS score was 10 (5–12) out of 16 points. Overall, 91% of patients had total closure (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–0.93, p < 0.01), with moderate heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 = 42.03%). There was no difference in closure success between open and endonasal approaches. Use of bilateral versus unilateral flaps, interposition grafts, and intranasal splints and packing were not associated with differences in outcomes. Conclusion Nasal septal perforation surgical repair success rates are comparable regardless of technique.