Steroid-eluting sinus stents for improving symptoms in chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Comparison of Absorbable Packing versus No Packing in Wound Healing after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to compare absorbable packing versus no packing in wound healing after ESS for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA SOURCE

English electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed, were searched, and only randomized controlled trials were included.

METHODS

The outcome measures were the presence of synechiae/adhesion formation, mucosal edema, crusting, granulation formation, and infection. The McNemar's test was used for pooled analysis.

RESULTS

Four studies with 148 participants were included. The pooled analysis showed that absorbable packing may offer benefit in reducing adhesion at 6-8 weeks (odds ratio [OR]: 0.3864; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2136-0.7235) and 12 weeks (OR: 0.2396, 95% CI: 0.08267-0.7709) postoperatively compared with no packing. There was no significant difference between the packed and the unpacked side at 2, 6-8, and 12 weeks after ESS in terms of presence of crusting, edema, and granulation formation.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that absorbable packing after ESS does not increase mucosal edema, granulation formation, and infection. However, the absorbable packing may be more effective than no packing for the prevention of mucosal adhesion after ESS. The use of absorbable nasal packing after ESS is recommended when used to reduce postoperative mucosal adhesion. More research in this area is clearly needed.

Non-invasive Fungal Sinusitis as a Complication of a Steroid-Eluting Stent Following Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

Steroid eluting stents have proven to be a highly useful adjunctive therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and play an important role in the treatment of many inflammatory diseases of the sinuses. Few reports of adverse events were reported in clinical trials and are described in the literature. However, we describe the first known case of an immunocompetent patient developing non-invasive fungal tissue infection as a sequelae of stent-related tissue necrosis requiring surgical debridement.

METHODS

A 69-year-old immunocompetent male with CRS had Propel™ stents placed in the bilateral frontal sinus outflow tracts during revision endoscopic sinus surgery. He presented 2 weeks post-operatively with severe facial pain without vision changes, fevers, mental status changes, or evidence of cranial neuropathies. On rigid nasal endoscopy, necrotic tissue and gross fungal elements were visualized in the left frontal sinus outflow tract at the area of previous steroid stent position.

RESULTS

The patient was taken for urgent endoscopic sinus surgery and debridement given significant symptoms and concern for invasive fungal infection. A revision left maxillectomy, ethmoidectomy, and draf 2b frontal sinus drillout were performed, with healthy bleeding tissue encountered beneath necrotic tissue. Pathology revealed tissue necrosis, exudative lumenal debris, and extensive fungal elements with no evidence of tissue invasion, and cultures yielded growth of aspergillus niger. The patient's symptoms improved significantly on post-operative day 1, he had normal post-operative changes at 2 weeks following debridement, and had no recurrence of fungal infection with complete healing at 4 months.

CONCLUSION

While likely rare, steroid-eluting stents may pose a risk of saprophytic tissue infection as a result of tissue necrosis and local immunosuppression. Caution should be taken in using these devices in immunocompromised patients.

[Efficacy and safety of pulmicort repulas-impregnated nasal dressing following endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study]

Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of pulmicort respulas immerse with nasopore as nasal packing after nasal endoscopic surgery on patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Method:This single-blind, randomized study recruit 33 patients diagnosed as chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis. All of them underwent bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery and randomized to receive pulmicort respulas immersed nasopore in one nasal cavity and saline immersed nasopore contralaterally. Both groups were followed up at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 weeks after operation. Subjective （VAS score） and objective （Lund-Kennedy score） scores are collected at each time point from both sides of nasal cavity. Result:There are 30 enrolled patients in the study completed the 24-week trial. Both the subjective and objective scores of two groups shows a significant reduction after the ESS operation. The VAS score of the two groups remains roughly unchanged during week 2 to week 24. A statistically significant difference of the Lund-Kennedy score can be detected between the groups from week 2 to week 24. Though the serum cortisol reduced （5.97±4.10） mmol/L vs （12.48±4.33） mmol/L after the surgery, neither group shows any clinical symptoms related with the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. Conclusion:This study demonstrated a significant improvement in postoperative healing in nasal cavities receiving pulmicort respulas immersed nasopore as nasal packing following ESS. This method of using budesonide is generally safe for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis.

Efficacy of steroid-eluting stents in management of chronic rhinosinusitis after endoscopic sinus surgery: updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been mounting evidence suggesting the efficacy of steroid-eluting stents (SES) for management of chronic rhinosinusitis after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). This meta-analysis serves to evaluate the efficacy of SES in improving postoperative outcomes after ESS.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed of PubMed for articles published between 1985 and 2018. The outcome variables were reported at, on average, 30 days postintervention.

RESULTS

Seven of the 76 published studies, all of which were industry-sponsored, were included for a collective cohort of 444 SES and 444 control sinuses. In patients who received SES vs controls, collective odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative need for intervention, surgery, and oral steroid were 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.62; p < 0.001), 0.30 (95% CI, 0.18-0.52; p < 0.001), and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.40-0.84; p = 0.004), respectively. In addition, collective ORs for frontal sinus ostia (FSO) patency, moderate-to-severe adhesion/scarring, and increase in polyp score were 2.53 (95% CI, 1.61-3.97; p < 0.001), 0.28 (95% CI, 0.13-0.59; p < 0.001), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.74; p = 0.002), respectively. Collective mean differences for FSO/ethmoid inflammation and FSO diameter were -10.86 mm (p < 0.001) and +1.34 mm (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Aggregate evidence suggests that SES can improve ESS outcomes by reducing rates of postoperative intervention and recurrent polyposis and inflammation, while promoting FSO patency. All included and analyzed studies were industry-sponsored and ruling-out publication bias was not possible. Future independent and nonsponsored studies to further evaluate SES's long-term efficacy are warranted.

Sinonasal debridement versus no debridement for the postoperative care of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is often recommended for symptomatic patients with recurrent acute or chronic rhinosinusitis who have failed conservative treatment. Postoperative care has been felt to be critical for both maintaining the surgical patency of the operated sinuses and improving patient symptoms. Debridement of the sinonasal cavities is one such postoperative care measure that has frequently been studied in the literature, often with conflicting conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of postoperative sinonasal debridement versus no debridement following endoscopic sinus surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); PubMed; EMBASE; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing postoperative nasal debridement versus no debridement in adult patients with recurrent acute or chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. We included studies in which the patients acted as self-controls (i.e. one side of the nose underwent debridement and the other side did not) only for the secondary endoscopy outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome measures were: health-related quality of life, disease severity (patient-reported symptom scores) and significant adverse effects (bleeding requiring intervention, severe pain, iatrogenic injury). Secondary outcomes were: postoperative endoscopic appearance of the sinonasal surgical cavities (endoscopic scores), recorded use of postoperative medical treatment and rate of revision surgery. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (152 participants), with a follow-up duration ranging from three months to 12 months. In two studies patients acted as self-controls, i.e. one side of the nose underwent debridement and the other side did not ('split-nose' studies). The risk of bias in all studies was high, mostly due to the inability to blind the patients to the debridement procedure.Primary outcomesDisease-specific health-related quality of life scoresOnly one study (58 participants) provided data for disease-specific health-related quality of life. At six months follow-up, lower disease-specific health-related quality of life scores, measured using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, range 0 to 110), were noted in the debridement group but the difference was not statistically significant (9.7 in the debridement group versus 10.3 in the control group, P = 0.47) (low-quality evidence).Disease severity (patient-reported symptom score)Only one study (60 participants) provided data for disease severity measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) score. No significant differences in total symptom score were observed between groups postoperatively (low-quality evidence).Significant adverse effectsSignificant adverse effects related to the debridement procedure were not reported in any of the included studies, however it is not clear whether data regarding adverse effects were not collected or if none were indeed observed in any of the included studies.Secondary outcomesAll four studies assessed thepostoperative endoscopic appearance of the sinonasal cavities using the Lund-Kennedy score (range 0 to 10). A pooled analysis of endoscopic scores in the two non 'split-nose' studies revealed better endoscopic scores in the debridement group, however this was not a statistically significant difference (mean difference -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.35 to 0.72; I² = 0%; two studies; 118 participants) (low-quality evidence). A sub-analysis of the adhesion formation component of the endoscopic score was available for all four studies and revealed a significantly lower adhesion rate in the debridement group (risk ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.68; I² = 29%; four studies; 152 participants). Analysis of the number needed to treat to benefit revealed that for every three patients undergoing debridement, the endoscopic score would be decreased by one point in one patient. For every five patients undergoing debridement adhesion formation would be prevented in one patient.Use of postoperative medical treatment was reported in all studies, all of which recommended nasal douching. Steroids (systemic or nasal) were administered in two studies. However, the data were very limited and heterogeneous, therefore we could not analyse the impact of concomitant postoperative medical treatment.The rate of revision surgery was not reported in any of the included studies, however it is not clear whether these data were not recorded or if there were no revision surgeries in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effects of postoperative sinonasal debridement due to high risk of bias in the included studies and the low quality of the evidence. Sinonasal debridement may make little or no difference to disease-specific health-related quality of life or disease severity. Low-quality evidence suggests that postoperative debridement is associated with a significantly lower risk of adhesions at three months follow-up. Whether this has any impact on longer-term outcomes is unknown.

Developing a core outcome set for chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review of outcomes utilised in the current literature

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported by all trials for a specific clinical area, in this case chronic rhinosinusitis. These are not restrictive and researchers may continue to explore other outcomes alongside these that they feel are relevant to their intervention. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the need for a COS for chronic rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

A sensitive search strategy was used to identify all published Cochrane systematic reviews and randomised control trials of intervention for adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Two independent authors reviewed these to obtain a list of outcomes and outcome measures reported by each clinical trial.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine randomised control trials and eight Cochrane systematic reviews were included in this study. They reported 68 individual outcomes and outcome measures, with an average of four to ten outcomes per clinical trial. These outcomes were mapped to 23 subcategories belonging to eight core categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The key finding of this review was the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and measured by clinical trials of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, precluding meaningful meta-analysis of data. This review supports the need for development of a COS, to be used in future trials on adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Risk Factors of Chronic Rhinosinusitis After Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

BACKGROUND Clinical data of 288 chronic rhinosinusitis patients were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the risk factors of clinical prognosis, aiming to provide clinical evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 288 patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis in the Department of Otolaryngology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University were recruited. Among all participants, 177 were male and 111 were female, aged from 22 to 83 years, (52±14) years on average. Subsequent follow-up was conducted to evaluate surgical efficacy. Influencing factors of clinical prognosis were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS After functional endoscopic sinus surgery by Messerklinger technique, 187 (64.9%) patients were fully recovered, 72 (25.0%) presented with improvement, and 28 (10.1%) were untreated. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that 11 variables were correlated with the clinical prognosis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age, history of allergic rhinitis, severity of dysosmia, history of nasosinusitis surgery, and long-term use of nasal decongestant were the risk factors, whereas comprehensive therapy after surgery was a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS More emphasis should be placed upon the factors associated with the clinical prognosis of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis following undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery, offering consolidated evidence for the prevention and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis

Therapeutic decisions in otorhinolaryngology are based on clinical experience, surgical skills, and scientific evidence. Recently, evidence-based therapies have gained increased attention and importance due to their potential to improve the individual patient's treatment and their potential at the same time to reduce treatment costs. In clinical practice, it is almost impossible to stay ahead of the increasing mass of literature and on the other hand critically assess the presented data. A solid scientific and statistical knowledge as well as a significant amount of spare time are required to detect systematic bias and other errors in study designs, also with respect to assessing whether or not a study should be part of an individual therapeutic decision. Meta-analyses, reviews, and clinical guidelines are, therefore, of increasing importance for evidence-based therapy in clinical practice. This review is an update of the availability of external evidence for the treatment of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis. It becomes evident that both groups of diseases differ significantly in the availability of external evidence. Furthermore, it becomes obvious that surgical treatment options are normally based on evidence of significantly lower quality than medical treatment options.