Image-Guided Sphenoidotomy in Revision Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

The application of image-guided systems to sinus surgery is gaining in popularity. This study tried to evaluate the efficacy of image-guided surgery (IGS) in the fenestration of the sphenoid sinus in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who received revision functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). A total of 51 CRS patients who received revision FESS incorporating IGS between January 2010 and August 2011 by two surgeons were enrolled in this study. A group of 30 CRS patients who underwent revision FESS by the senior surgeon without incorporating IGS was chosen for comparison. The penetration rates for the sphenoid sinus were 91.2% when performed by the senior surgeon with IGS and 91.3% when done by the other surgeon with IGS. The penetration rate for the sphenoid sinus was 68.6% for revision FESS without IGS. The fenestration rate for the sphenoid sinus in revision FESS without IGS was significantly lower than that in revision FESS with IGS (p = .004). Our results showed that IGS was a beneficial procedure for opening the sphenoid sinus in the revision cases

Validation of the Applicability of the Traditional Chinese Version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis

The 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) is the most widely used smell test in the world. Presently, culturally modified versions of this test are available in multiple languages. A traditional Chinese version of the UPSIT (UPSIT-TC) has been developed for administration in Taiwan. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the UPSIT-TC in Taiwanese patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The phenylethyl alcohol (PEA) odor detection threshold test, the North American version of UPSIT (UPSIT-NA), and the UPSIT-TC were administered to 40 healthy subjects and to 100 CRS patients before and after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). The UPSIT-TC showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.887, 0.886, and 0.870 at three test occasions) and test-retest reliability (p < 0.001). The scores of UPSIT-TC were significantly correlated to the PEA thresholds (p < 0.001). The UPSIT-TC scores were significantly higher than those of the UPSIT-NA (p = 0.028) when analysis was performed with logistic regression with independent variables including test occasions (before or after FESS), test methods (UPSIT-NA or UPSIT-TC), status of polyp (with or without), and PEA thresholds (improved or did not improve). In addition, there were significant between-group differences in UPSIT-TC scores including healthy versus CRS, CRS with polyps versus CRS without polyps, and PEA thresholds improved versus PEA thresholds which did not improve. The UPSIT-TC is reliable and valid for measuring olfactory function in Taiwanese patients with rhinosinusitis. In addition, the UPSIT-TC clearly resulted in better performance than that of UPSIT-NA

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field