McCoul, Edward D

ABSTRACT Objectives Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) refers to purulent sinusitis caused by infectious maxillary dental pathologies, with > 90% occurring unilaterally. While various clinical features suggest ODS, diagnosing some ODS patients can be challenging. This study aimed to determine the value of maxillary sinus papillary edema (MSPE) in predicting ODS. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent at least maxillary antrostomy for unilateral sinus disease (USD). Adequately powered samples of three USD cohorts were generated: ODS, infectious maxillary CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), and noninfectious CRSwNP. Multiple variables were collected, but the primary outcome was MSPE presence via double‐blinded endoscopic image review by three rhinologists. Inter‐rater agreement was calculated, and a predictive model for MSPE was generated. Results Of 41 ODS, 22 infectious CRSsNP, and 13 noninfectious CRSwNP patients, mean age was 57.0 years and 55.3% were female. There was almost perfect agreement between rhinologists when assessing for MSPE on endoscopic images ( κ = 0.927). MSPE was seen in 100% of ODS, 22.7% infectious CRSsNP, and 0% CRSwNP. MSPE was significantly more likely in ODS compared to non‐odontogenic CRS ( p < 0.0001), demonstrating 100% sensitivity and 89.1% specificity for ODS, with 85.7% positive and 100% negative predictive values. Conclusions MSPE is a distinct finding that is reliably identifiable and is significantly more likely in ODS compared to infectious CRSsNP and noninfectious CRSwNP. With 100% sensitivity and NPV, MSPE absence makes ODS very unlikely. With 86% PPV, MSPE is not pathognomonic for ODS, but should arouse suspicion for a possible odontogenic source. Level of Evidence 3.

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.

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.

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous and expanding, and the healthcare industry has rapidly adopted AI and machine learning for numerous applications. It is essential to understand that AI is not immune to the biases that impact our clinical and academic work, and in fact may inadvertently amplify rather than reduce them. As we harness the power of AI, it is our obligation to our patients to ensure that we address these concerns. We must take responsibility for proactive stewardship to protect against bias, not only for new AI algorithms, but also for our research studies that may one day provide data for those algorithms.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAn association is suggested between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and malignancy of the larynx in elderly patients in the United States. Early detection with flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy (FFL) or CT remains poorly defined.MethodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare linked database was queried from 2003 to 2011.A case‐cohort design evaluated patients aged 66 and older with a diagnosis of GERD and/or LPR for the occurrence of FFL or CT within 6 months of the exposure diagnosis.ResultsOf a total 156 426 Medicare beneficiaries, the relative risk of early cancer diagnosis with FFL was 14.61(95% confidence interval [CI], 13.59‐15.70), corresponding to a number needed to detect (NND) a case of cancer of 13(95% CI, 13‐14). The relative risk of an early cancer diagnosis with CT was 31.83 (95% CI, 29.57‐34.26), with a NND of 5 (95% CI, 5‐5).ConclusionsEarly FFL and CT are associated with a higher likelihood of laryngeal cancer diagnosis in elderly individuals with a diagnosis of reflux. Screening trials are necessary to establish this relationship.

BackgroundSigns of inflammation are commonly encountered during endoscopic examination of the Eustachian tube (ET) region. The clinical applicability of these findings may be enhanced by use of a standardized assessment score.MethodsDigital video recordings were obtained of 50 nasal endoscopy examinations of the nasopharyngeal portion of the ET. Four fellowship‐trained rhinologists independently reviewed the videos with regard to specific physical findings: edema of the ET torus, erythema of the ET torus, exudate at the ET orifice, and presence of tubal tonsil. Scoring of this Endoscopic Evaluation of the Eustachian Tube (3ET) was reported using both 2‐point and 3‐point scales. Each reviewer repeated the scoring at a 10‐day interval. Interrater and intrarater agreement were calculated for each item and the total scores.ResultsInterrater and intrarater agreement were greater for the 3‐point scale than the 2‐point scale. Interrater agreement for overall instrument using the 3‐point scale was in the “acceptable” range for Krippendorff's alpha on both the first trial (0.6922) and second trial (0.7238). Intrarater agreement was generally “excellent” for individual items as well as the overall instrument.ConclusionThe 3ET comprising these 4 physical findings has acceptable interrater and intrarater reliability, and may be applied to future clinical studies of ET function and disease.