Patel, Vishal S.

Objective Schwannomas are common nerve sheath tumors and may occur anywhere in the body. 4% of head and neck schwannomas occur in the sinonasal cavity, and fewer yet have an intracranial component, making these presentations extremely rare. Furthermore, schwannomas present with nonspecific imaging signs and can only be definitively differentiated via histopathologic review, leading to misdiagnosis as various nasal tumors. We aim to conduct a review of published literature on sinonasal schwannomas with and without intracranial extension and provide additional case representations. Methods A literature review was conducted using the PubMed Database with the terms “sinonasal schwannoma,” “intracranial,” “anterior skull base,” and “schwannoma.” Results were reviewed, and additional cases identified were referenced and included in the study. Inclusion criteria were any case with intracranial extension of the schwannoma. There were no exclusion criteria. Review data was compiled into Excel and used for data analysis and comparison. Additionally, a search was done within our institution to identify additional cases of sinonasal schwannoma. Results We identified 17 cases of sinonasal schwannoma with intracranial extension, five from our institution and twelve from literature. Analysis revealed: 8 females (47%), 9 males (53%), 9 patients presented with headaches (53%), 6 patients presented with anosmia (35%), 4 patients presented with nasal obstruction (24%), and 2 patients with no symptoms (12%). Mean age and median were 39.4 ± 10.1 and 40, respectively. For treatment, 4 patients underwent endoscopic resection (24%), 11 underwent craniotomy (65%), and data was unavailable for 2 patients. Post-treatment complications occurred in 6 patients, 5 had CSF leaks (29%) and 1 had a hematoma (6%). Conclusion We identified and discussed 17 cases of sinonasal schwannoma with intracranial extension. We hope our review provides insight for clinicians to maintain schwannoma as a potential differential when evaluating nasal and anterior skull base masses.

Background While Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) is a known comorbidity of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), the prevalence of ETD symptoms in the CRS population is poorly understood. We sought to determine the cross‐sectional prevalence of ETD in patients with CRS using the validated Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Questionnaire (ETDQ‐7) and to correlate ETDQ‐7 scores with 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) scores, endoscopy scores, and computed tomography (CT) scores. Methods A total of 101 patients with confirmed CRS completed the ETDQ‐7 and SNOT‐22 at their initial visit to our rhinology clinic. Lund‐Mackay CT and Lund‐Kennedy endoscopy scores were also obtained. Spearman's correlation coefficient (ρ) was calculated. Results Among the 101 patients, 49 patients (48.5%) had an ETDQ‐7 score of ≥14.5, signifying clinically significant ETD. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) ETDQ‐7 score of the entire cohort was 17.8 ± 10.1. There was a moderately strong correlation between ETDQ‐7 and the SNOT‐22 ear subdomain (ρ = 0.691, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between ETDQ‐7 and total SNOT‐22 scores was ρ = 0.491 ( p < 0.001), indicating moderate correlation. ETDQ‐7 scores were poorly correlated to objective measures of sinonasal disease, including Lund‐Mackay CT score (ρ = −0.055, p = 0.594) and Lund‐Kennedy endoscopy score (ρ = −0.099, p = 0.334). Conclusion Symptoms of ETD are highly prevalent among patients with CRS as documented by patient‐reported outcome measures. The correlation between ETDQ‐7 scores and SNOT‐22 ear subdomain scores is moderately strong, while the correlation between ETDQ‐7 scores and SNOT‐22 scores is moderate. ETD severity does not correlate with CT score or nasal endoscopy score.

BackgroundEndoscopic Draf 2B and Draf 3 frontal sinusotomies are frequently performed for chronic refractory frontal rhinosinusitis. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between Draf 2B and Draf 3 procedures.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing patients undergoing bilateral Draf 2B vs Draf 3 procedures from 2000 to 2016. Patients with neoplasia, dysplasia, mucocele, cystic fibrosis, or ciliary dyskinesia were excluded. Preoperative disease parameters included number of prior surgeries, presence of polyps, preoperative 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) score, frontal Lund‐Mackay score, anterior‐posterior diameter of the frontal ostium, and Global Osteitis Scoring Scale (GOSS). Postoperative outcomes included SNOT‐22 score, neo‐ostium patency, surgical revision rates, and complications.ResultsA total of 21 patients with bilateral Draf 2B and 17 patients with Draf 3 surgeries were compared. Mean follow‐up time was 15.6 months. No significant differences were seen between groups for any preoperative disease parameter. Both cohorts showed statistically significant (p = 0.0001 [Draf 2B]; p = 0.0001 [Draf 3]) and clinically meaningful (Δ = 24.1; Δ = 24.9) improvements in SNOT‐22 at last follow‐up vs preoperatively. The Draf 2B group had greater improvement in SNOT‐22 score than the Draf 3 group at 1 to 3 months (p = 0.003), but the magnitude of improvement equalized at 5 to 9 months (p = 0.66) and last follow‐up (p = 0.90). No significant differences were noted between groups regarding patency, revision rates, or complications.ConclusionBoth Draf 2B and Draf 3 procedures offer durable symptomatic improvement for patients with refractory frontal CRS. The Draf 2B is associated with earlier postoperative symptom improvement and overall shows comparable long‐term outcomes to the Draf 3 sinusotomy.