-
International Journal of Pediatric... Jan 2021This study aims to present a case series and systematic review of acute isolated sphenoid sinusitis (AISS) in children in order to better characterize clinical...
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to present a case series and systematic review of acute isolated sphenoid sinusitis (AISS) in children in order to better characterize clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of this condition.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar.
STUDY SELECTION
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Full-text, peer-reviewed journal publications from 1994 to 2020 in English; focus on acute sphenoid sinusitis; pediatric patients (<18 years of age); series with two or more children. Studies were assessed for data including demographics, presenting symptoms and signs, radiological investigations, treatment, outcomes and complications.
RESULTS
Ten studies identifying 71 patients were included. Average age at presentation was 12.0 years (range 5-17 years). M:F ratio 1:1. The most common presenting symptoms were headache (98.6%), fever (50.7%), nasal symptoms (22.5%) ocular symptoms (19.7%) and decreased level of consciousness (12.7%). Twenty patients (28.1%) had neurological signs. Twenty-three patients (32.4%) presented with headache in isolation. Unsuspected diagnosis at presentation was noted in 54.0%. Average time to initial presentation was 14.0 days (median = 5.5 days, range 1-90 days). The majority of children were treated with antibiotics (98.6%) with 31.0%, 2.8% and 2.8% also undergoing sinus surgery, revision sinus surgery and neurosurgery, respectively. Intracranial complications occurred in 16.9% of patients. Significant long term sequelae occurred in 2 children (2.8%) and one death (1.4%) was also reported.
LIMITATIONS
All studies were retrospective case note reviews.
CONCLUSIONS
Acute sphenoid sinusitis is a rare and difficult condition to diagnose in children. The majority of patients make a full recovery with appropriate treatment. If treatment is delayed however consequences can be life-threatening.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Headache; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Sphenoid Sinus; Sphenoid Sinusitis
PubMed: 33234332
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110492 -
Cureus Aug 2022The coronavirus can infect the upper respiratory tract, sinuses, and nose, and its severity manifests in its respiratory symptoms and neurological and psychological... (Review)
Review
The coronavirus can infect the upper respiratory tract, sinuses, and nose, and its severity manifests in its respiratory symptoms and neurological and psychological consequences. The majority of people who have COVID-19 present with moderate flu-like illness, and patients who are elderly with comorbid conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, are more prone to experience severe illness and death. However, in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, neurological consequences have become a substantial source of morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 poses a global hazard to the nervous system because of its widespread dispersion and multiple pathogenic pathways. This review offers a critical assessment of the acute and long-term neurological effects of the COVID-19 virus. Some neurological problems include headache, dizziness, myalgia/fatigue, meningitis, ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, and myelitis. Other people who have contracted COVID-19 also exhibit neurological features such as loss of taste and smell, reduced consciousness, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. This study seeks to help neurologists comprehend the wide range of neurologic aspects of COVID-19, as understanding neurological symptoms may help with the management and enhance the patient's outcomes.
PubMed: 36168382
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28309 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Aug 2021With the recent increase in popularity of electronic cigarette use in the United States, its harmful effects are not only limited to smoke inhalation, but also to the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
With the recent increase in popularity of electronic cigarette use in the United States, its harmful effects are not only limited to smoke inhalation, but also to the possibility of e-cigarette device malfunction. The purpose of this review is to characterize oromaxillofacial trauma secondary to electronic cigarette device explosion.
METHODS
For this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were searched in October 2019 using the following search terms: e-cigarette burns, e-cigarette injury, and e-cigarette explosions, which yielded 400 studies. Basic science research, animal studies, non-English studies, and reports of non-oromaxillofacial injuries were excluded. Study subject demographics, mechanism of trauma, injury type, treatment, and sequelae were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS
Of all studies, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 14 case reports and 6 case series, with a total of 21 study subjects. For cases that reported sex, 100% were male (20) with a mean age of 29.5 years. Most common lacerations and/or burns involved the lips (10/21), tongue (8/21), soft palate and/or hard palate (4/21), and nose (5/21). Thirteen subjects underwent surgeries including oral-maxillofacial surgery or dental implants (7/13), bone graft repair (3/13), open reduction and internal fixation for preservation of sinus outflow tracts (2/13), foreign body removal from the cervical spine (1/13), and iridectomy (1/13). Reported complications included bone loss secondary to traumatic fracture, tinnitus and hearing loss, lip paralysis secondary to persistent edema, major depressive disorder/ post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent sinusitis, photophobia, and bilateral axillary and hand contractures.
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic cigarette device malfunction and explosion carries great risk for acute oromaxillofacial trauma that may be disfiguring. With the increasing popularity of electronic cigarette use, clinicians and patients should be advised regarding dangers of electronic cigarette use.
Topics: Adult; Burns; Cervical Vertebrae; Depressive Disorder, Major; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Explosions; Humans; Male
PubMed: 33974919
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2021.03.008 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Apr 2022Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can cause infectious orbital, intracranial, and osseous complications. Diagnosis and management of complicated ODS have not been discussed in...
OBJECTIVE
Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) can cause infectious orbital, intracranial, and osseous complications. Diagnosis and management of complicated ODS have not been discussed in recent sinusitis guidelines. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe epidemiological and clinical features, as well as management strategies of complicated ODS.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was performed to describe various features of complicated ODS. All complicated ODS studies were included in qualitative analysis, but studies were only included in quantitative analysis if they reported specific patient-level data.
RESULTS
Of 1126 studies identified, 75 studies with 110 complicated ODS cases were included in qualitative analysis, and 47 studies with 62 orbital and intracranial complications were included in quantitative analyses. About 70% of complicated ODS cases were orbital complications. Only 23% of complicated ODS studies were published in otolaryngology journals. Regarding ODS-related orbital and intracranial complications, about 80% occurred in adults, and 75% were male. Complicated ODS occurred most commonly from apical periodontitis of maxillary molars. There were no relationships between sinusitis extent and orbital or intracranial complications. High rates of anaerobic and α-hemolytic streptococcal bacteria were identified in complicated ODS. Management generally included systemic antibiotics covering aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and surgical interventions were generally performed to address both the complications (orbital and/or intracranial) and possible infectious sources (dentition and sinuses).
CONCLUSION
ODS should be considered in all patients with infectious extrasinus complications. Multidisciplinary management between otolaryngologists, dental specialists, ophthalmologists, and neurosurgeons should be considered to optimize outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Male; Orbital Diseases; Otolaryngologists; Otolaryngology; Paranasal Sinuses; Sinusitis
PubMed: 34253072
DOI: 10.1177/01945998211026268 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Jun 2023Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDDs) may be a risk factor for development of recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). There are currently no clear guidelines for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDDs) may be a risk factor for development of recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). There are currently no clear guidelines for the timing and methodology of PIDD testing in patients with RARS. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and analyze existing literature on this topic.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Articles addressing recurrent acute sinusitis and immunodeficiencies were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and systematically evaluated for eligibility by two reviewers.
RESULTS
Of the 209 unique articles identified, 11 met criteria for review and analysis. Articles consisted of historical cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, in addition to case series and nonsystematic reviews. The majority (10) recommended immunodeficiency testing, consisting of general immunologic screening (3), quantitative immunoglobulins (6), and postvaccination antibody titers (5). There was an emphasis on immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass testing (6). Of the eight articles providing timing recommendations, the majority recommended testing after recurrent infections or diagnosis (6); however, criteria for diagnosis of RARS and populations targeted by recommendations varied greatly by article.
CONCLUSION
Current literature on RARS emphasizes immunoglobulin quantification and postvaccination antibody titers to evaluate for PIDD after diagnosis, but recommendations are limited by wide-ranging populations of interest and inconsistent definitions. This scoping review identified a lack of evidence-based articles specific to diagnostic workup for PIDD in patients with RARS, and additional research with standardized definitions and focus on RARS is necessary to guide clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Sinusitis; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes; Acute Disease; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36355381
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23106 -
OTO Open 2022This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.
RESULTS
Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.
CONCLUSION
Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.
PubMed: 35720767
DOI: 10.1177/2473974X221105277 -
JAMA Sep 2015Chronic sinusitis is a common inflammatory condition defined by persistent symptomatic inflammation of the sinonasal cavities lasting longer than 3 months. It accounts... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Chronic sinusitis is a common inflammatory condition defined by persistent symptomatic inflammation of the sinonasal cavities lasting longer than 3 months. It accounts for 1% to 2% of total physician encounters and is associated with large health care expenditures. Appropriate use of medical therapies for chronic sinusitis is necessary to optimize patient quality of life (QOL) and daily functioning and minimize the risk of acute inflammatory exacerbations.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the highest-quality evidence on medical therapies for adult chronic sinusitis and provide an evidence-based approach to assist in optimizing patient care.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review searched Ovid MEDLINE (1947-January 30, 2015), EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases. The search was limited to randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Evidence was categorized into maintenance and intermittent or rescue therapies and reported based on the presence or absence of nasal polyps.
FINDINGS
Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria: 12 meta-analyses (>60 RCTs), 13 systematic reviews, and 4 RCTs that were not included in any of the meta-analyses. Saline irrigation improved symptom scores compared with no treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.84]; a positive SMD indicates improvement). Topical corticosteroid therapy improved overall symptom scores (SMD, -0.46 [95% CI, -0.65 to -0.27]; a negative SMD indicates improvement), improved polyp scores (SMD, -0.73 [95% CI, -1.0 to -0.46]; a negative SMD indicates improvement), and reduced polyp recurrence after surgery (relative risk, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79]). Systemic corticosteroids and oral doxycycline (both for 3 weeks) reduced polyp size compared with placebo for 3 months after treatment (P < .001). Leukotriene antagonists improved nasal symptoms compared with placebo in patients with nasal polyps (P < .01). Macrolide antibiotic for 3 months was associated with improved QOL at a single time point (24 weeks after therapy) compared with placebo for patients without polyps (SMD, -0.43 [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.05]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Evidence supports daily high-volume saline irrigation with topical corticosteroid therapy as a first-line therapy for chronic sinusitis. A short course of systemic corticosteroids (1-3 weeks), short course of doxycycline (3 weeks), or a leukotriene antagonist may be considered in patients with nasal polyps. A prolonged course (3 months) of macrolide antibiotic may be considered for patients without polyps.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antifungal Agents; Chronic Disease; Doxycycline; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Macrolides; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Nasal Polyps; Quality of Life; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 26325561
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.7544 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work days. Current symptomatic treatments have limited benefit. Corticosteroids are an effective treatment in other upper respiratory tract infections and their anti-inflammatory effects may also be beneficial in the common cold. This updated review has included one additional study.
OBJECTIVES
To compare corticosteroids versus usual care for the common cold on measures of symptom resolution and improvement in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 4), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (2015, Issue 2), NHS Health Economics Database (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to May week 3, 2015) and EMBASE (January 2010 to May 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing corticosteroids to placebo or to standard clinical management.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We were unable to perform meta-analysis and instead present a narrative description of the available evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (353 participants). Two trials compared intranasal corticosteroids to placebo and one trial compared intranasal corticosteroids to usual care; no trials studied oral corticosteroids. In the two placebo-controlled trials, no benefit of intranasal corticosteroids was demonstrated for duration or severity of symptoms. The risk of bias overall was low or unclear in these two trials. In a trial of 54 participants, the mean number of symptomatic days was 10.3 in the placebo group, compared to 10.7 in those using intranasal corticosteroids (P value = 0.72). A second trial of 199 participants reported no significant differences in the duration of symptoms. The single-blind trial in children aged two to 14 years, who were also receiving oral antibiotics, had inadequate reporting of outcome measures regarding symptom resolution. The overall risk of bias was high for this trial. Mean symptom severity scores were significantly lower in the group receiving intranasal steroids in addition to oral amoxicillin. One placebo-controlled trial reported the presence of rhinovirus in nasal aspirates and found no differences. Only one of the three trials reported on adverse events; no differences were found. Two trials reported secondary bacterial infections (one case of sinusitis, one case of acute otitis media; both in the corticosteroid groups). A lack of comparable outcome measures meant that we were unable to combine the data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence does not support the use of intranasal corticosteroids for symptomatic relief from the common cold. However, there were only three trials, one of which was very poor quality, and there was limited statistical power overall. Further large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults and children are required to answer this question.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Beclomethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Female; Fluticasone; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26461493
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub3 -
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine 2016The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis,... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications. Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors. Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries "mometasone furoate", "rhinitis", "sinusitis", "asthma", "polyposis", "otitis media with effusion", and "adenoid hypertrophy" we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria. Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review. MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia. Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES. In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations. In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough. The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children. As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug.
CONCLUSIONS
MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.
PubMed: 27141307
DOI: 10.1186/s40248-016-0054-3 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Feb 2016The body of knowledge regarding rhinosinusitis(RS) continues to expand, with rapid growth in number of publications, yet substantial variability in the quality of those... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The body of knowledge regarding rhinosinusitis(RS) continues to expand, with rapid growth in number of publications, yet substantial variability in the quality of those presentations. In an effort to both consolidate and critically appraise this information, rhinologic experts from around the world have produced the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR:RS).
METHODS
Evidence-based reviews with recommendations(EBRRs) were developed for scores of topics, using previously reported methodology. Where existing evidence was insufficient for an EBRR, an evidence-based review (EBR)was produced. The sections were then synthesized and the entire manuscript was then reviewed by all authors for consensus.
RESULTS
The resulting ICAR:RS document addresses multiple topics in RS, including acute RS (ARS), chronic RS (CRS)with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP), recurrent acute RS (RARS), acute exacerbation of CRS (AECRS), and pediatric RS.
CONCLUSION
As a critical review of the RS literature, ICAR:RS provides a thorough review of pathophysiology and evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment. It also demonstrates the significant gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology and optimal management of RS. Too often the foundation upon which these recommendations are based is comprised of lower level evidence. It is our hope that this summary of the evidence in RS will point out where additional research efforts may be directed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Child; Chronic Disease; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 26889651
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21695