-
Pediatric Subperiosteal Abscess Secondary to Acute Sinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The Laryngoscope Dec 2020The surgical versus medical management of subperiosteal abscess can be controversial. The purpose of this study was to summarize current literature and provide pooled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
The surgical versus medical management of subperiosteal abscess can be controversial. The purpose of this study was to summarize current literature and provide pooled analyses to help direct management decisions.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Patients <18 years old with subperiosteal abscess secondary to acute sinusitis were reviewed, and a meta-analysis was conducted. Studies including five or more patients written in English were the primary search focus.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and seven studies contained sufficient data for the meta-analysis. A total of 1,167 patients between the ages of 10 days and 18 years were included. Eleven sign/symptom categories were identified, with restricted ocular motility (n = 289, 45.9%), proptosis (n = 277, 44%), and fever (n = 223, 35.4%) being most frequent. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen isolated from cultures. Patients with abscess volume greater than the threshold specified in each individual study were over three times more likely to require surgical intervention compared to those with smaller abscess volume (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 3.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.40-5.44). Proptosis and gaze restriction also significantly predicted surgical intervention (pooled RR = 1.65: 95% CI: 1.29-2.12 for proptosis/pooled RR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.20-3.00 for gaze restriction).
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately half of patients with a subperiosteal abscess undergo surgical drainage. Abscess volume appears to be the most significant predictive risk factor. Detailed data from future studies regarding radiologic and ophthalmologic parameters are needed to provide more definitive values predictive of which patients are likely to fail medical therapy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2a Laryngoscope, 2020.
Topics: Abscess; Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drainage; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Orbital Diseases; Periosteum; Sinusitis; Steroids
PubMed: 32065412
DOI: 10.1002/lary.28570 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Currently, two separate Cochrane reviews, ‘’ and ‘’ describe the effect of antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis. Although both Cochrane reviews study the same... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Currently, two separate Cochrane reviews, ‘’ and ‘’ describe the effect of antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis. Although both Cochrane reviews study the same condition, they look at different populations (patients in which the diagnosis was based on clinical signs and symptoms and patients in which the diagnosis was confirmed by imaging). Because of this, the conclusions are different in these Cochrane reviews. This was confusing for clinicians who needed to read both Cochrane reviews to know which conclusions are most applicable to their patients. This review is being withdrawn and will be incorporated into the updated publication of ‘’. This ‘merged’ review will still maintain the relevant distinction between the two populations. However, information on the effectiveness of antibiotics for rhinosinusitis will be published in the ‘merged’ Cochrane review. We will omit the comparison between antibiotics (as published in this Cochrane review) because the choice for certain antibiotics and/or doses differs according to the local antibiotic resistance patterns and therefore this comparison is less relevant. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Maxillary Sinusitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26471061
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000243.pub4 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed... (Review)
Review
Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed up to March 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were extracted. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 instrument; Results: Fifteen reports were analyzed. MMC results exhibited a significant correlation (r = 0.7590, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.6855; 0.8172], p < 0.0001) with those of maxillary sinus puncture. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of MMC (reference = maxillary sinus culture) was 8.5475 [3.9238; 18.6199]. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.761. The sensitivity and specificity of MMC were 0.7759 [0.6744; 0.8526] and 0.7514 [0.6110; 0.8534], respectively. We performed subgroup analysis based on age (children vs. adults), duration of disease (acute vs. chronic), and specimen collection method (biopsy, swabs, suction tips). The DORs, specificities, and negative and positive predictive values varied significantly. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for children and individuals with chronic disease, and when samples were collected via suction.; Conclusions: MMC provided fair diagnostic accuracy in patients with acute or chronic sinusitis. Although some institutional differences were evident, the middle meatal and maxillary sinus culture results were similar.
PubMed: 36294389
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206069 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Nov 2014Orbital infections from acute sinusitis are rare in neonates and infants and can lead to devastating complications. To our knowledge, no prior dedicated review exists... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Orbital infections from acute sinusitis are rare in neonates and infants and can lead to devastating complications. To our knowledge, no prior dedicated review exists for evaluation, treatment, and outcomes of orbital complications in this age group.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review over the past 50 years on the diagnosis and treatment of orbital complications secondary to acute sinusitis in neonates and infants and report a case.
EVIDENCE AND ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature was performed searching PubMed to collect all the pertinent case reports and series in the English language with subperiosteal orbital abscess (SPOA) or orbital abscess in neonates or infants (date range, 1959-2012).
RESULTS
Eleven cases of SPOA in infants were identified, including our current case. Ages ranged from 10 to 74 days. There were 6 female and 5 male infants. The right eye was affected in 5 cases, the left in 5, and both in 1. There was 1 mortality in this series for which surgical drainage was not performed. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism isolated in 9 of 11 cases. Seven of the cases had open surgical drainage, 2 had endoscopic procedures (including our case), and 1 had spontaneous rupture of the abscess.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
An orbital complication due to acute sinusitis is rare in infants and neonates. Drainage in this patient population appears to be paramount, since the only infant in this series who did not receive drainage had died. Modern telescopes and equipment have allowed endoscopic drainage to be a safe and effective surgical treatment in this age group.
Topics: Abscess; Acute Disease; Drainage; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Orbital Diseases; Sinusitis; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 25317572
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.2326 -
Rhinology Jun 2016Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy requires special considerations. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy requires special considerations.
OBJECTIVES
1. Conduct a systematic literature review for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) management during pregnancy. 2. Make evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and relevant search terms. Title, abstract and full manuscript review were conducted by two authors independently. A multispecialty panel with expertise in management of Rhinological disorders, Allergy-Immunology, and Obstetrics-Gynecology was invited to review the systematic review. Recommendations were sought on use of following for CRS management during pregnancy: oral corticosteroids; antibiotics; leukotrienes; topical corticosteroid spray/irrigations/drops; aspirin desensitization; elective surgery for CRS with polyps prior to planned pregnancy; vaginal birth versus planned Caesarian for skull base erosions/ prior CSF rhinorrhea.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight manuscripts underwent full review after screening 3052 abstracts. No relevant level 1, 2, or 3 studies were found. Expert panel recommendations for rhinosinusitis management during pregnancy included continuing nasal corticosteroid sprays for CRS maintenance, using pregnancy-safe antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis and CRS exacerbations, and discontinuing aspirin desensitization for aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease. The manuscript presents detailed recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
The lack of evidence pertinent to managing rhinosinusitis during pregnancy warrants future trials. Expert recommendations constitute the current best available evidence.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea; Cesarean Section; Chronic Disease; Delivery, Obstetric; Disease Management; Female; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Nasal Polyps; Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures; Paranasal Sinuses; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 26800862
DOI: 10.4193/Rhino15.228 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Apr 2020Sinusitis and rhinitis are common diseases for which patients seek medical attention. Alternative therapies constitute a multibillion-dollar industry despite poorly...
BACKGROUND
Sinusitis and rhinitis are common diseases for which patients seek medical attention. Alternative therapies constitute a multibillion-dollar industry despite poorly established efficacy and safety profiles. This study was designed to identify and grade the evidence for alternative therapies purported to treat sinusitis and rhinitis.
METHODS
A modified Delphi method was used to establish a consensus opinion among rhinology experts of the current evidence for efficacy, potential harm, and future research needs for alternative therapies in sinusitis and rhinitis. Following the initial Delphi round of discussion, a Google search query was performed to identify topics and review online reports of benefit. Subsequent rounds established search criteria and inclusion/exclusion criteria for a systematic literature review utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess levels of evidence and recommendations. Final Delphi rounds were performed until consensus opinions could be reached.
RESULTS
Over 60 potential alternative therapies for sinusitis and rhinitis were identified. The literature review included 2066 titles with 220 full-text articles found to be relevant. Most of the therapies had little to no scientific evidence; however, acupuncture, capsaicin, bromelain, and butterbur extract currently have low to moderate-high GRADE rating. Allergic rhinitis was the most common disease studied.
CONCLUSION
Some alternative therapies show promise as potential treatments for sinusitis and rhinitis, mostly compared to placebo. Comparisons to traditional therapies are lacking. For other alternative therapies, many websites included unsubstantiated claims of benefit and ignored potential side effects for which patients should be warned appropriately.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Chronic Disease; Complementary Therapies; Humans; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sinusitis
PubMed: 32104974
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22488 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022Acute exacerbations (AE) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are a common and important clinical issue. However, relatively little is known regarding the underlying... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute exacerbations (AE) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are a common and important clinical issue. However, relatively little is known regarding the underlying microbiology that drives exacerbations or how it relates to the microbiome of CRS. The purpose of this study is to examine the literature to characterize the microbiome associated with acute exacerbations in a chronic rhinosinusitis setting. Understanding this disease process may facilitate targeted antibiotic therapy, reduced antibiotic resistance, and offer more effective disease control and treatment efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the microbiome associated with acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature on Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases from January 1990-June 2021 to identify studies related to AE in CRS. Exclusion criteria include non-English, non-human studies, and case reports. Studies without culture or PCR data were also excluded.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were identified which provided detailed data regarding sinus microbiome in AECRS patients. In these patients, a total of 1252 individual isolates were identified. While common acute pathogens were identified in high frequencies in the sinonasal cultures (), the predominant bacteria were (including methicillin-sensitive ) and Patient characteristics that may represent higher risk phenotypes were not consistently collected in the studies. Discussion of antimicrobial sensitivities and/or resistance were included in 7/14 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review identifies the predominant microbiology species that may contribute to AECRS. Further studies are needed to understand the pathogenic role of bacteria and viruses in AECRS and to identify associated comorbidities and patient phenotypes that may predispose to AE. The optimal treatment regimen for AECRS remains unclear.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Chronic Disease; Humans; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Staphylococcal Infections
PubMed: 35402317
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.858196 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Sep 2016Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is a common primary care infection, but there have been no recent, comprehensive diagnostic meta-analyses. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is a common primary care infection, but there have been no recent, comprehensive diagnostic meta-analyses.
AIM
To determine the accuracy of laboratory and imaging studies for the diagnosis of ARS.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review of diagnostic tests in outpatient, primary care, and specialty settings.
METHOD
The authors included studies of patients presenting with or referred for suspected ARS, and used bivariate meta-analysis to calculate summary estimates of test accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The authors also plotted summary ROC curves to explore heterogeneity, cutoffs, and the impact of different reference standards.
RESULTS
Using antral puncture as the reference standard, A mode ultrasound (positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 1.71, negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.41), B mode ultrasound (LR+ 1.64, LR- 0.69), and radiography (LR+ 2.01, LR- 0.28) had only modest accuracy. Accuracy was higher using imaging as the reference standard for both ultrasound (LR+12.4, LR- 0.35) and radiography (LR+ 9.4, LR- 0.27), although this likely overestimates accuracy. C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) both had clear threshold effects, and modest overall accuracy. The LR+ for ESR >30 and >40 were 4.08 and 7.40, respectively. A dipstick of nasal secretions for leucocyte esterase was highly accurate (LR+ 18.4, LR- 0.17) but has not been validated.
CONCLUSION
In general, tests were of limited value in the diagnosis of ARS. Normal radiography helps rule out sinusitis when negative, whereas CRP and ESR help rule in sinusitis when positive, although, given their limited accuracy as individual tests, they cannot be routinely recommended. Prospective studies integrating signs and symptoms with point-of-care CRP, dipstick, and/ or handheld B-mode ultrasound are needed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Blood Sedimentation; C-Reactive Protein; Humans; Prevalence; Primary Health Care; Radiography; Reproducibility of Results; Rhinitis; Sensitivity and Specificity; United States
PubMed: 27481857
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X686581 -
The Journal of Craniofacial SurgeryMaxillary osteotomies as a component of orthognathic surgery disrupt the normal anatomy and function of the sinus. The osteotomy with advancement of the inferior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Maxillary osteotomies as a component of orthognathic surgery disrupt the normal anatomy and function of the sinus. The osteotomy with advancement of the inferior component of the sinus leaves a bony and mucosal opening in the sinus. Immediately after surgery, nasal drainage is impeded because of intranasal swelling. Acute and chronic maxillary sinusitis would be expected; however, its incidence as an expected complication is not well documented. A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed using PubMed to determine the incidence of sinusitis after maxillary orthognathic surgery. Studies were reviewed by two authors, and incidence data were extracted. Two hundred six articles were identified with 24 meeting the criteria for analysis. The incidence of sinusitis was based on 4213 participants who had undergone orthognathic surgery. Twenty-three studies reported a total number of sinusitis cases, and the results demonstrated a pooled incidence of 3.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.77, 6.06). One study did not report a total number of cases but reported chronic sinusitis survey-duration-based and Lund-Mackay scores. These scores, respectively, worsened from 7.6 to 14.8 and from 1.58 to 2.90 postoperatively. Despite the variability of maxillary surgery, the surgical technique, and the postoperative management, the incidence is low but sinusitis does occur. Prospective studies with validated questionnaires within the context of a specific protocol may further elucidate the causality of sinusitis. Further, patients with sinonasal symptoms postsurgery should be encouraged to consult with an otolaryngologist to ensure prompt treatment.
Topics: Humans; Orthognathic Surgery; Prospective Studies; Incidence; Sinusitis; Maxillary Sinusitis; Osteotomy; Chronic Disease; Endoscopy
PubMed: 37681995
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009738 -
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). This executive summary consolidates the findings of the ICAR:RS document.
METHODS
ICAR:RS presents over 140 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs) and evidence-based reviews (EBR). The structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary.
RESULTS
This summary compiles the EBRRs regarding medical and surgical management of acute RS (ARS) and chronic RS with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP).
CONCLUSION
This ICAR:RS Executive Summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
Topics: Acute Disease; Chronic Disease; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Nasal Polyps; Rhinitis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 26878819
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21694