Papagiannopoulos, Peter

ABSTRACT Objectives While maxillary sinus fungal balls (MSFB) can be associated with odontogenic conditions (MSFBO), MSFBO clinical and dental features have not been compared to odontogenic sinusitis (ODS). This multicenter study aimed to compare characteristics of MSFB, MSFBO, and ODS. Methods A multicenter international retrospective cohort study was conducted on adults with MSFBs and ODS who underwent sinus surgery. First in MSFBs, it was determined whether different dental conditions were more likely in FB versus non‐FB sides. Second, clinical features and dental pathologies were compared between MSFBO and ODS. For analyses, dental conditions were considered individually and as two groups: infectious pathologies and dental/oral procedures with indwelling metallic materials. Results After exclusions, there were 203 MSFBs and 163 ODS. Among MSFBs, 141 were MSFBOs. FB sides were associated with sinus protrusion of root canal treatment (RCT) materials ( p = 0.040) and dental implants ( p = 0.040). Compared to MSFBO, ODS patients were younger, more likely to have MS purulence (OR = 40.9, p < 0.010), more likely associated with apical periodontitis (OR = 2.59, p = 0.010) and oroantral fistulas (OR = 6.94, p = 0.020), and less likely associated with extruded RCT materials (OR = 0.01, p = 0.010) and protruded midface screws (OR < 0.01, p = 0.010). Comparing purulent MSFBO and ODS, ODS was more associated with infectious dental pathologies ( p < 0.009). Conclusion Compared to MSFBs, MSFBOs were associated with RCT extrusion and implant protrusion. Compared to MSFBOs, ODS was more likely purulent and associated with infectious dental pathologies. While ODS is often distinct from MSFBO, the two conditions can coexist, and surgeons must determine whether patients have infectious dental pathology requiring treatment with both conditions. Level of Evidence 4.

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.

IntroductionUnilateral sphenoid sinus opacification on computed tomography is caused by a variety of pathologies including inflammatory and infectious sinusitis, benign and malignant tumors, and encephaloceles. The purpose of this study was to report craniofacial pain locations and outcomes in inflammatory unilateral sphenoid sinusitis (USS) patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).MethodsA multi‐institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted on all adult patients who had ESS for USS from 2015 to 2022. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms and nasal endoscopy findings, extent of surgical dissection, and craniofacial pain locations and outcomes were recorded. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, non‐inflammatory etiology, immunodeficiency, invasive fungal sinusitis, lack of follow‐up, lack of preoperative pain location, and neoplasia. Descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsOf 57 patients with USS, 44 (77.2%) reported craniofacial pain at one or more locations. Retrobulbar (n = 19, 43.2%) was the most common pain location followed by frontal (n = 17, 38.6%) and occipital (n = 10, 22.7%). Surgical intervention resulted in pain resolution in 33/44 patients (75%), with a mean follow‐up of 83.7 (±97.8) days. There were no significant associations between presenting symptoms, imaging findings, endoscopy, surgical extent, or final pathology and the presence or resolution of facial pain (p > 0.05).ConclusionIn USS patients, the most common craniofacial pain locations were retrobulbar, occipital, and frontal, with a minority being vertex. Based on short‐term follow‐up, ESS resolved the craniofacial pain in 75% of cases. There were no clinical variables that predicted the presence or resolution of craniofacial pain.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 135:1915–1919, 2025

Abstract Background Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field. Methods In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. Results The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. Conclusion As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.