Citations

Background Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in the United States, with both open (OCTR) and endoscopic (ECTR) techniques widely used. As surgical practices evolve and outpatient care expands, understanding future utilization trends across care settings is increasingly important. This study projects the use of OCTR and ECTR through 2040 to inform shifting surgical preferences and healthcare demands. Methods This study analyzed procedural data from 2010 to 2019 using the PearlDiver Mariner all-payer claims database. Cases of OCTR and ECTR were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Procedures were further stratified by inpatient or outpatient status based on the documented site of service field within the database. Log-linear, Poisson, negative binomial regression, and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were applied to procedural volumes to project trends through 2040. The ARIMA model was selected based on the lowest normalized root mean square error and overall model performance. Results In 2019, there were 31,190 outpatient ECTR, 155 inpatient ECTR, 101,334 outpatient OCTR, and 1359 inpatient OCTR procedures. By 2040, outpatient ECTR is projected to grow to 65,072 cases (95% CI, 62,471–67,781) at 3.79% annually. Inpatient ECTR is projected to reach 181 cases (95% CI, 97–340) with 2.13% annual growth. Outpatient OCTR is expected to decline to 77,834 cases (95% CI, 76,287–79,413), and inpatient OCTR to 962 cases (95% CI, 809–1143), with annual decreases of 1.19% and 1.48%, respectively. Conclusions By 2040, demand for outpatient ECTR is projected to increase by 110.31% compared to 2019, whereas outpatient OCTR is expected to decline by 20.31%. Although inpatient utilization remains limited, the adoption of endoscopic techniques is anticipated to rise across all care settings, in contrast to the continued decline of open procedures. These trends highlight the ongoing shift toward minimally invasive, ambulatory surgical care. Strategic planning in surgical training, healthcare infrastructure, and reimbursement models will be critical to meet changing demands. Further research is needed to validate these projections in broader populations and across diverse healthcare systems.

ABSTRACT Introduction Sinonasal sarcomas are exceedingly rare entities, constituting less than 7% of head and neck sarcomas. Their complex histology needs specialized treatment, which is often based on multimodal approaches including surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. This manuscript aims to gather expert opinions to establish common management principles for sinonasal sarcomas. Methods This international consensus followed a modified Delphi method in seven steps, including statements definition by the core group, expert panel recruitment, and a two‐round survey. Sixty‐two statements on sinonasal sarcoma management were developed. Experts from multiple continents participated, and results were anonymized and analyzed between March and May 2025. Results A total of 44 invited experts were recruited, 43.2% otorhinolaryngologists/head and neck surgeons, 31.8% medical oncologists, and 25% radiation oncologists. Participants varied in age and experience, representing Europe (70.5%), North America (18.2%), South America (6.8%), and Asia (4.5%). Among all histologies, biphenotypic sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and myofibrosarcoma are principally treated with an upfront surgical management, differently from Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma in which chemotherapy, eventually associated with radiotherapy, is often chosen. In the remaining histologies (angiosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST], osteosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma), a precise multimodal treatment is less standardized and needs to be discussed on a case‐by‐case basis. Conclusion Sinonasal sarcomas require a histology‐driven approach to determine upfront treatment, whether surgical, medical, or multimodal. Despite this structured strategy, prognosis remains highly variable across subtypes. Multidisciplinary evaluation and individualized management in referral centers are crucial to address the biological diversity and anatomical complexity of these rare malignancies.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundOlfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) is a rare sinonasal malignancy primarily treated with surgery. For tumors arising from the olfactory area, traditional treatment involves transcribriform resection of the anterior cranial fossa. Surgery can be performed with unilateral or bilateral resection depending on extent of involvement; however, there are currently no studies comparing outcomes between the two.MethodsProspective and retrospective data on primary ONB patients were collected from a multicenter registry involving eight academic sites. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create patient cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan Meier analyses assessed overall survival (OS). Logistic regression assessed associations between extent of resection (unilateral versus bilateral) and tumor recurrence or postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.ResultsA total of 187 ONB patients (47.6% female) with an average age of 53.6 ± 15.1 years were analyzed. Most tumors were unilateral (81.3%) and predominantly Kadish C (58.3%) or Hyams II (55.8%). Overall, 56.7% of patients underwent bilateral resection. Fifty‐four patients experienced tumor recurrence and nine had postoperative CSF leaks. Following PSM (n = 45/group), extent of resection was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73; p = 0.407) or OS (p = 0.400). There was no association between extent of resection and recurrence (odds ratio [OR] 0.90; p = 0.814) or postoperative CSF leak (OR 1.54; p = 0.647).ConclusionsFor ONB tumors where unilateral resection may be feasible and oncologically sound, the decision for unilateral versus bilateral resection showed no significant effect on survival, recurrence, or postoperative CSF leak. Oncologic outcomes may be comparable when resection is tailored to individual patient and tumor characteristics.