Hwang, Peter H

Background Endoscopic skull‐base surgery (ESBS) is employed in the management of diverse skull‐base pathologies. Paralleling the increased utilization of ESBS, the literature in this field has expanded rapidly. However, the rarity of these diseases, the inherent challenges of surgical studies, and the continued learning curve in ESBS have resulted in significant variability in the quality of the literature. To consolidate and critically appraise the available literature, experts in skull‐base surgery have produced the International Consensus Statement on Endoscopic Skull‐Base Surgery (ICAR:ESBS). Methods Using previously described methodology, topics spanning the breadth of ESBS were identified and assigned a literature review, evidence‐based review or evidence‐based review with recommendations format. Subsequently, each topic was written and then reviewed by skull‐base surgeons in both neurosurgery and otolaryngology. Following this iterative review process, the ICAR:ESBS document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results The ICAR:ESBS document addresses the role of ESBS in primary cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea, intradural tumors, benign skull‐base and orbital pathology, sinonasal malignancies, and clival lesions. Additionally, specific challenges in ESBS including endoscopic reconstruction and complication management were evaluated. Conclusion A critical review of the literature in ESBS demonstrates at least the equivalency of ESBS with alternative approaches in pathologies such as CSF rhinorrhea and pituitary adenoma as well as improved reconstructive techniques in reducing CSF leaks. Evidence‐based recommendations are limited in other pathologies and these significant knowledge gaps call upon the skull‐base community to embrace these opportunities and collaboratively address these shortcomings.

Background Selecting the optimal surgical approach for resection of sinonasal inverted papilloma (SIP) remains a challenge, with endoscopic, external, and combined approaches being utilized. This systematic review was conducted as an update to a 2006 systematic review to determine the preferred surgical approach for tumor control. Methods The study protocol was developed a priori following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) process. Data were collected and outcomes were analyzed according to surgical approach and sites of tumor involvement. Results A total of 96 papers and 4134 SIP patients were included. The overall recurrence rate was 12.80% (322/2515) for the endoscopic approach group, 16.58% (182/1098) for the external approach group, and 12.60% (65/516) for the combined approach group. Meta‐analysis by random effects model showed that the summarized risk ratio (RR) of recurrence was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.85, p = 0.003), I 2 = 37.95% for the endoscopic vs external approach; 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.39, p = 0.901), I 2 = 9.06% for the endoscopic vs combined approach; 1.61 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.43, p = 0.025), I 2 = 0.00% for the external vs combined approach. After adjusting for publication bias, the adjusted RRs were 0.66 ( p = 0.014) for endoscopic vs external; 0.99 ( p = 0.955) for endoscopic vs combined; and 1.33 ( p = 0.224) for external vs combined. Conclusion An enlarging and maturing body of literature continues to indicate that endoscopic approaches result in significantly lower recurrence rates than open approaches for surgical resection of SIP.

BackgroundThe International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification (IFAC) is an international consensus document published in 2016 to standardize the nomenclature of cells in the region of the frontal recess and frontal sinus. The IFAC was designed to be surgically relevant and anatomically precise. The current study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of the frontal cell variants as defined by the IFAC, as well as to determine the interrater reliability of the IFAC.MethodsThree independent reviewers examined triplanar nondiseased maxillofacial computed tomography (CT) scans to assess the anatomy of the frontal recess according to the IFAC system. The prevalence of each cell type was assessed and interrater reliability was measured using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsOne hundred CT scans (200 sides) were examined. Of the 200 sides, 96.5% contained an agger nasi cell (ICC, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77‐0.86), 30.0% contained a supra agger cell (ICC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86‐0.92), 20.0% contained a supra agger frontal cell (ICC 0.80; 95% CI 0.74‐0.84), 72.0% contained a supra bulla cell (ICC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76‐0.85), 5.5% contained a supra bulla frontal cell (ICC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63‐0.77), 28.5% contained a supraorbital ethmoid cell (ICC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.83), and 30.0% contained a frontal septal cell (ICC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74‐0.84). The ICC was good to excellent for identification of all frontal cell types.ConclusionsThis study describes the normative distribution of frontal recess cells in a nondiseased population according to IFAC and demonstrates favorable interrater reliability of the classification system.

Background Oral steroids are commonly used in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP, respectively). Past reports have included evaluation of the evidence for the use of oral steroids in CRS subtypes. However, a review with evidence‐based recommendations for all CRS subtypes has never been performed. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive, evidence‐based approach for the utilization of oral steroids in the management of CRS. A systematic review of the literature was performed following recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guideline Manual, Conference on Guideline Standardization, and Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation. Inclusion criteria were: adult population ≥18 years old; CRS; oral steroids as the treatment group; and clearly defined primary clinical end‐point. This review identified and evaluated the literature on the use of oral steroids for CRSwNP, CRSsNP, allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), and the use of oral steroids in the perioperative period in these patients. Recommendations based on evidence, benefit/harm assessment, and value judgments are made. Oral steroids are strongly recommended for short‐term management of CRSwNP. Oral steroids are also recommended for management of AFS. Oral steroid use in CRSsNP is optional due to insufficient strong evidence. Oral steroids are also strongly recommended in the perioperative period for CRSwNP and AFS. There is no recommendation for oral steroids use in the perioperative period in patients with CRSsNP. The risks of oral steroids are rare, but significant adverse effects must be considered. © 2012 ARS–AAOA, LLC. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed following recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guideline Manual, Conference on Guideline Standardization, and Appraisal of Guidelines and Research Evaluation. Inclusion criteria were: adult population ≥18 years old; CRS; oral steroids as the treatment group; and clearly defined primary clinical end‐point. This review identified and evaluated the literature on the use of oral steroids for CRSwNP, CRSsNP, allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), and the use of oral steroids in the perioperative period in these patients. Recommendations based on evidence, benefit/harm assessment, and value judgments are made. Oral steroids are strongly recommended for short‐term management of CRSwNP. Oral steroids are also recommended for management of AFS. Oral steroid use in CRSsNP is optional due to insufficient strong evidence. Oral steroids are also strongly recommended in the perioperative period for CRSwNP and AFS. There is no recommendation for oral steroids use in the perioperative period in patients with CRSsNP. The risks of oral steroids are rare, but significant adverse effects must be considered. © 2012 ARS–AAOA, LLC. Results This review identified and evaluated the literature on the use of oral steroids for CRSwNP, CRSsNP, allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), and the use of oral steroids in the perioperative period in these patients. Recommendations based on evidence, benefit/harm assessment, and value judgments are made. Oral steroids are strongly recommended for short‐term management of CRSwNP. Oral steroids are also recommended for management of AFS. Oral steroid use in CRSsNP is optional due to insufficient strong evidence. Oral steroids are also strongly recommended in the perioperative period for CRSwNP and AFS. There is no recommendation for oral steroids use in the perioperative period in patients with CRSsNP. The risks of oral steroids are rare, but significant adverse effects must be considered. © 2012 ARS–AAOA, LLC. Conclusion Oral steroids are strongly recommended for short‐term management of CRSwNP. Oral steroids are also recommended for management of AFS. Oral steroid use in CRSsNP is optional due to insufficient strong evidence. Oral steroids are also strongly recommended in the perioperative period for CRSwNP and AFS. There is no recommendation for oral steroids use in the perioperative period in patients with CRSsNP. The risks of oral steroids are rare, but significant adverse effects must be considered. © 2012 ARS–AAOA, LLC.