Headaches and facial pain in rhinology

Headache and Facial Pain/Pressure in the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the severity and prevalence of headache and facial pain/pressurere in the chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) population.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

The literature was searched from inception through June 2023 for English language articles documenting "headache" or "facial pain/pressure" and "chronic rhinosinusitis." Data collected included Lund-MacKay computed tomography score, Lund-Kennedy endoscopy score, sinonasal outcome test, and visual analog scale. Meta-analyses were performed on continuous measures (mean), proportions (%), and regression.

RESULTS

A total of 69 studies were included with 8643 CRS patients and 703 control patients. The CRS group had a mean age of 44.1 (range: 16-82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.3-48) and 86.1% [95% CI: 76.4-93.5] with nasal polyposis. The control group had a mean age of 39.2 (range: 17-88; 95% CI: 28.7-49.8). All CRS subgroups had significantly more severe headache and facial pain/pressure when compared to the control (P < .0001). Patients without polyps had significantly more severe facial pain/pressure and headache when compared to patients with polyps (P < .0001). Facial pain/pressure is a moderate problem or worse in 29.8% of polypoid patients versus 56.4% of nonpolypoid patients; Δ26.6% [95% CI: 0.7-50; P = .045].

CONCLUSIONS

Across all outcome metrics, CRS patients experience significantly more severe headache and facial pain/pressure when compared to a control population. Nonpolypoid patients experience significantly more severe facial pain/pressure and headache when compared to polypoid patients. The majority of nonpolypoid patients experience facial pain/pressure that is moderate in severity or worse.

Decisions regarding antibiotic prescribing for acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice. A qualitative focus group study

BACKGROUND

Acute sinusitis is a frequent reason for primary care visits. Most patients recover within two weeks without antibiotic treatment. Despite this, about 50% of patients with acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice are still prescribed antibiotics. We do not know the reason behind this discrepancy.

AIM

To explore the clinical decision-making process and reasons for treatment with antibiotics for acute sinusitis among Norwegian general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Five focus group interviews were conducted (N = 25) in different parts of Norway, including GPs of various age, gender, and experience. The interviews were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation.

RESULTS

The results showed a very diverse management of acute sinusitis among GPs, with decisions regarding antibiotics not always aligning with guideline recommendations. Many of the GPs did not agree with the Norwegian guidelines for antibiotics and chose something other than phenoxymethylpenicillin as their first choice. Clinical predictors emphasized in decision-making were pain complaints and patient exhaustion. Pragmatic factors such as weekday, travel plans, or a full waiting room could also influence the decision.

CONCLUSION

GPs found it difficult to identify when patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment for acute sinusitis, and different strategies were used to make prescribing decisions. For several GPs the degree of pain was one of the decisive reasons for antibiotic prescribing, however the guidelines for antibiotics do not give sufficient advice regarding pain treatment. These results suggest a need for revaluation of guideline contents and the way they are communicated to GPs.

Treatment of sinus headache using a device that combines acoustic vibration with oscillating expiratory pressure

Objective

To determine if simultaneous administration of acoustic vibration and oscillating expiratory pressure affects the severity of facial pain among patients with complaint of "sinus headache".

Methods

This is a prospective single-arm observational study performed at a tertiary care medical center. Subjects with complaint of sinus headache without evidence of chronic rhinosinusitis on exam or computed tomography participated in a clinical study applying simultaneous acoustic vibrations and positive expiratory pressure to the nasal cavity twice daily over 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed using three validated pain metrics-pain visual analog scale (VAS), brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF), and McGill pain questionnaire-short form (MPQ-SF). Device safety and patient satisfaction were also assessed using questionnaires.

Results

Twenty-nine patients (mean age 49 years, 55% female) completed the study without any major adverse events. At the 4 week follow-up, facial pain VAS improved from mean ± SD of 59.6 ± 15.7 to 34.6 ± 21.7 (p < .001), BPI mean pain (mean ± standard deviation) improved from 4.4 ± 2.0 to 2.9 ± 1.9 (p = .007), and MPQ-SF total improved from 12.2 ± 6.5 to 6.5 ± 5.2 (p < .001) with approximately 70% of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) across all metrics. Additionally, pain VAS was assessed 5 min after a single use at baseline with significant improvement (p < .001). Eighty-six percent of subjects would both use device again and recommend it to others.

Conclusions

Simultaneous administration of acoustic vibration and oscillating expiratory pressure appears to be a safe treatment for sinus headaches in patients without objective evidence of chronic sinusitis. Results from this initial study are promising with regard to efficacy in treatment of sinus headaches but will require further study.

Level of evidence

2c.

The Use of Flexible Rhinolaryngoscopy for Allergy-Immunology Practice

Flexible rhinolaryngoscopy is an underused procedure that can provide allergists-immunologists and other physicians with several benefits over existing imaging techniques. In this article, we highlight the many benefits of flexible rhinolaryngoscopy and expand on its safety, cost-effectiveness, and convenience. This article also covers current procedure techniques and assesses the most common indications and relevant clinical findings for which flexible rhinolaryngoscopy can be used to evaluate the nasopharyngeal tract. Videos for the clinician showing some of the most common findings are included.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Model to Diagnose Sinonasal Inverted Papilloma Based on Computed Tomography Features and Clinical Characteristics

Objectives: Sinonasal inverted papilloma (SNIP) is one of the most common benign tumors of the nasal cavity and sinuses and is at risk for recurrence and malignant transformation. It is crucial to precisely predict SNIP before surgery to determine the optimal surgical technique and prevent SNIP recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) features and SNIP clinical characteristics and to develop and validate a clinically effective nomogram. Methods: Here, 267 patients with SNIP and 273 with unilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyps were included. Patient's demographic and clinical characteristics (i.e., gender, age, nasal symptoms, history of sinus surgery, smoking, and alcohol dependence) and CT features (i.e., lobulated/wavy edge, air sign, focal hyperostosis, diffuse hyperostosis, focal osseous erosion, and CT values) were recorded. Independent risk factors were screened using logistic regression analysis. A nomogram model was developed and validated. Results: Logistic regression analysis showed that age, facial pain/headache, history of sinus surgery, lobulated/wavy edge, air sign, focal hyperostosis, focal osseous erosion, and CT values were independent predictors of SNIP. A nomogram comprising these 8 independent risk factors was established. The area under the curve (AUC) for the training set was .960 (95% CI, .942-.978) and the AUC for the validation set was .951 (95% CI, .929-.971). Conclusion: The obtained results suggested that the nomogram based on age, facial pain/headache symptoms, history of sinus surgery, and CT characteristics had an excellent diagnostic value for SNIP.

Novel Devices for Sinus Headache

Novel medical devices are emerging as low-risk treatment options for patients suffering from sinus headaches. Early trends for the treatment of sinus headaches using medical devices are following the more established primary headache literature. There are two categories of devices with early data supporting use, which may serve as useful adjuncts to conventional pharmacotherapy in the management of sinus headaches not caused by sinusitis: transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation and acoustic vibration with oscillating expiratory pressure. There is currently a paucity of high-level evidence and further studies are needed. Initial reports suggest these interventions are low risk, but longer follow-up is necessary.

Debunking Myths: Sinus Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although sinus headache has been extensively reviewed and described, misdiagnosis remains common. This paper discusses the myths and truths about sinus headaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sinus headache is used colloquially to attribute facial pain to allergies or a sinus infection; however, most sinus headaches are migraine. Sinus-region pain from sinusitis and migraine share the same origins in the trigeminovascular system, but their causes are very different. After reviewing sinus anatomy and sinogenic pain, we provide information to assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing patients with the additional goal of avoiding unnecessary investigations and treatments. Migraine medications can be used as both a treatment and a diagnostic tool. Other differential diagnoses of facial pain are discussed. Sinus headache is not a diagnosis. All patients with facial pain or pressure with sinus symptoms should be evaluated for migraine because most sinus headache presentations are migraine and require migraine-directed treatment.

The Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Is a Poor Diagnostic Tool for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

The SNOT-22 is a validated and widely used outcomes tool in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We hypothesized that SNOT-22 scores and response patterns could be used as a diagnostic tool to differentiate between patients with CRS and those who present with CRS-like symptoms but prove not to have CRS.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

SNOT-22 measurements were collected from 311 patients who presented with a chief complaint of sinusitis to a tertiary rhinology practice. Following a full diagnostic evaluation, patients were diagnosed with CRS or determined to have non-CRS diagnoses. A response pattern "heatmap" of the SNOT-22 scores for each group was compared. An optimal cutoff point for total SNOT-22 score in predicting CRS was sought using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were diagnosed with CRS and 202 patients were assigned to non-CRS. The non-CRS SNOT-22 total score histogram had lower overall scores compared to the CRS group, although there was substantial overlap. The CRS SNOT-22 heatmaps had a distinctive pattern compared to the non-CRS group. As individual measures, 3 of the 4 cardinal symptoms of CRS (nasal congestion, loss of smell, and rhinorrhea) were found to be significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .002). However, the ROC analysis showed the total SNOT-22 score to be a poor instrument to differentiate CRS from non-CRS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results cause us to reject our hypothesis and conclude that, while an effective outcomes tool, the SNOT-22 (using total score and response pattern) is a poor differentiator between CRS and non-CRS patients.

Symptoms and Clinical Findings in Primary Headache Syndrome Versus Chronic Rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Primary headache syndrome (PHS) patients frequently present to otolaryngologists with sinonasal complaints and diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) due to symptomatic overlap. In this study, we compare demographic, subjective, and objective clinical findings of patients with PHS versus CRS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a database of patients presenting to a single tertiary care Rhinology clinic from December 2011-July 2017. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT) scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scores were obtained. Lund-MacKay CT scores were calculated, if available. Requirement of headache specialist management was compared between PHS and CRS groups. Patients with both CRS and PHS (CRScPHS) that required headache specialist management were compared to patients with CRS without PHS (CRSsPHS) and patients with PHS alone using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out to determine significant diagnostic thresholds.

RESULTS

One-hundred four PHS patients and 130 CRS patients were included. PHS patients (72.1%) were more likely than CRS patients to require headache specialist management (6.9%, p<0.0001). CRSsPHS patients had significantly higher Nasal domain scores compared to PHS patients (p = 0.042) but not compared to CRScPHS patients (p>0.99). CRScPHS (p = 0.0003) and PHS (p<0.0001) subgroups of patients had significantly higher Aural/Facial domain scores compared to CRSsPHS patients. PHS patients also had significantly higher Sleep domains scores compared to CRSsPHS patients (p<0.0001). Both CRScPHS and CRSsPHS subgroups had significantly higher nasal endoscopy scores (p<0.0001) and CT scores (p = 0.04 & p<0.0001, respectively) compared to the PHS group. Aural/Facial domain score of 4, nasal endoscopy score of 4, and CT score of 2 were found to be reliable diagnostic thresholds for absence of CRS.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNOT-22 may be used to distinguish PHS from CRS based upon the Aural/Facial and Sleep domains. Patients with CRS have more severe Nasal domain scores and worse objective endoscopy and CT findings.

A comparative clinical and radiographic study on patients with chronic facial pain with and without temporomandibular disorder presenting to an otolaryngology clinic

Objective: Facial pain associated with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is considered a component of Costen's syndrome. However, prior to the current study, no previous clinical and radiographic studies have addressed facial pain in patients with TMD. Methods: The study included 212 patients with chronic facial pain examined in an otolaryngology clinic. These were stratified into 132 patients with TMD and 80 patients without TMD. Clinical and radiographic findings were documented in both groups. Results: Forty-eight patients in the TMD group had normal endoscopic findings and clear CT scans and had their facial pain directly attributable to TMD. Conclusion: In patients presenting with facial pain, where nasal endoscopy reveals no abnormality, TMD should be specifically addressed, especially if CT scans of the paranasal sinuses are clear.