The fate of chronic rhinosinusitis sufferers after maximal medical therapy

Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery

Endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery is the standard procedure for surgery of most paranasal sinus diseases. Appropriate frame conditions provided, the respective procedures are safe and successful. These prerequisites encompass appropriate technical equipment, anatomical oriented surgical technique, proper patient selection, and individually adapted extent of surgery. The range of endonasal sinus operations has dramatically increased during the last 20 years and reaches from partial uncinectomy to pansinus surgery with extended surgery of the frontal (Draf type III), maxillary (grade 3-4, medial maxillectomy, prelacrimal approach) and sphenoid sinus. In addition there are operations outside and beyond the paranasal sinuses. The development of surgical technique is still constantly evolving. This article gives a comprehensive review on the most recent state of the art in endoscopic sinus surgery according to the literature with the following aspects: principles and fundamentals, surgical techniques, indications, outcome, postoperative care, nasal packing and stents, technical equipment.

A pilot study of symptom profiles from a polyp vs an eosinophilic-based classification of chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is likely a biologically heterogeneous disease process. Current guidelines propose subclassification using polyp status while others propose using mucosal eosinophilia. We hypothesized that appropriate CRS subclassification would increase homogeneity of baseline symptoms, and identify characteristic symptoms of each subtype.

METHODS

A total of 57 CRS patients undergoing surgery prospectively completed a preoperative battery of 73 questions relating to symptoms including the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) general quality of life (QOL) measures. Eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) levels were determined from ethmoid, uncinate, and polyp tissue homogenates using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and normalized to total protein. Patients were classified as eosinophilic (eCRS) or non-eosinophilic (neCRS) using a 95th percentile threshold established from control tissue from 82 patients without CRS. Separate pairwise comparisons were performed on patient-reported symptoms using polyp and eosinophilic status.

RESULTS

Of the 57 patients, 28 had CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP); 27 of 57 patients had eCRS (CRSwNP, n = 21; CRS without nasal polyps [CRSsNP], n = 6). CRSwNP patients had increased need to blow nose, frequency of nasal congestion, more severe difficulty breathing through nose, more severe nasal discharge, but less cough (p < 0.05). eCRS patients had more bothersome loss of taste/smell, ear pain, sneezing, severe difficulty breathing through nose, and severe nasal congestion compared to neCRS patients (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Subclassifying CRS with symptoms alone is difficult with neither polyp status nor eosinophilia giving a distinctive clinical symptom profile. However, certain symptoms may help otolaryngologists identify CRS subtypes, which may help guide future treatments. Further validation and evaluation of prognosis following treatment is required to evaluate appropriate means of subclassifying CRS.

When are we operating for chronic rhinosinusitis? A systematic review of maximal medical therapy protocols prior to endoscopic sinus surgery

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is considered a therapeutic option after failure of maximal medical therapy (MMT) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). There is currently no consensus on the definition of MMT. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the various MMT criteria employed prior to considering ESS.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were adults with CRS based on guideline diagnostic criteria, enrolled to undergo ESS, and study publication within the last 5 years (January 1, 2009, to December 30, 2014). Studies were excluded if the study population included non-CRS indications for ESS. Primary outcome was the MMT criteria employed prior to considering a patient a candidate for ESS. A subgroup analysis was performed based on polyp status.

RESULTS

Of 387 reviewed studies, 21% reported MMT criteria. When reported, criteria included topical nasal corticosteroids (91% of studies) for a mean of 8 ± 8 weeks, oral antibiotics (89%) for 23 ± 8 days, systemic corticosteroids (61%) for 18 ± 12 days, saline irrigations (39%), oral antihistamines (11%), oral mucolytics (10%), and topical/oral decongestants (10%).

CONCLUSION

A minority of studies report MMT criteria used as the indication for ESS. When reported, the majority included an 8-week course of topical intranasal corticosteroids and 3-week course of oral antibiotics. Use of systemic corticosteroids did not differ based on polyp status. Because of variation in current MMT criteria, there is a need to develop standardized indications for ESS that will work to improve the appropriateness of care for patients with.

Cost efficient workup and management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis - challenges and unmet needs

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disease, estimated to occur in 12-16% of the United States population. This prevalence creates a significant health burden with an estimated 15 million ambulatory visits for the condition annually. Consequently, practice guidelines have been designed to assist both the primary care provider and specialist in establishing a CRS diagnosis and prescribing effective treatment for CRS. The guidelines for CRS diagnosis have evolved since the United States Rhinosinusitis Task Force first published its symptom-based guidelines in 1997. Contemporary practice guidelines still require 12 weeks of appropriate symptoms, but now include corroboration of objective sinonasal inflammation demonstrated on physical exam, imaging, or endoscopy to arrive at a CRS diagnosis. While these diagnostic criteria are seemingly straightforward and are regarded as the gold standard for the diagnosis, the appropriate timing of imaging and endoscopy remain unspecified and continue to present challenges for both primary care and specialty providers. These considerations have to be measured by the direct and indirect costs of the diagnostic workup including office visits, CT scanning, endoscopy, as well as the potential for overuse of treatment modalities such as antibiotics and steroid medications. The goal of this review is to update the primary care provider and otolaryngologist on current evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis, including the costs and timing of endoscopy and imaging.