Hwang, Peter H.

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 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.

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.