Phillips, Katie M.

ABSTRACT Objective There is limited consensus on endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) reconstruction principles. This study aims to generate comprehensive themes regarding ESBS reconstruction by pooling the experiences of ESBS experts, with comparison to a literature review of current published evidence. Methods Structured qualitative interviews of ESBS experts regarding postoperative management and reconstruction of various defect locations were conducted. Results A total of 68 experts comprising 40 academic teams across 13 countries with an average of 18 years of ESBS experience were included. We propose 10 stepwise algorithms for common skull base reconstruction scenarios based on these expert interviews. When available, the nasoseptal flap is used for all high_flow cerebrospinal leak defects. Multilayered reconstruction is favored at all anatomical subsites with increasing number of layers for increasing defect size and complexity. Heterogeneity exists in terms of inlay technique and materials, free grafting versus various pedicled flap options for low‐flow defects or in the absence of a nasal septum, nasal packing, tissue sealant, lumbar drain use, and postoperative management. Commonalities and discrepancies between experts were summarized. Conclusion Skull base reconstruction and post‐ESBS management is highly complex with a wide variety of practice patterns and expert strategies. Further research of higher quality evidence is warranted to identify optimal management patterns, though the current work aims to inform surgeons on these controversial areas by drawing from numerous experiences.

AbstractBackgroundWe identify chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) manifestations associated with how rhinologists assess CRS control, with a focus on patient perspectives (patient‐reported CRS control).MethodsFifteen rhinologists were provided with real‐world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients’ CRS control as “controlled,” “partly controlled,” and “uncontrolled” using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient‐reported CRS control. They then classified patients’ CRS control without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist‐assessed CRS control with patient‐reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined.ResultsCRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw = 0.758). Rhinologist‐assessed CRS control agreed with patient‐reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control (κw = 0.736 vs. κw = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient‐reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists’ assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists’ CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw = 0.529) and without (κw = 0.538) patient‐reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases.ConclusionsThis study directly demonstrates the importance of patient‐reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists’ CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control may better align rhinologists’ CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients’ perspectives.

Abstract Background In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document. Methods ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence‐based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.