Functional oropharyngeal sensory disruption interferes with the cortical control of swallowing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sensory input is crucial to the initiation and modulation of swallowing. From a clinical point of view, oropharyngeal sensory deficits have been shown to be an important cause of dysphagia and aspiration in stroke patients. In the present study we therefore investigated effects of functional oropharyngeal disruption on the cortical control of swallowing. We employed whole-head MEG to study cortical activity during self-paced volitional swallowing with and without topical oropharyngeal anesthesia in ten healthy subjects. A simple swallowing screening-test confirmed that anesthesia caused swallowing difficulties with decreased swallowing speed and reduced volume per swallow in all subjects investigated. Data were analyzed by means of synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM) and the group analysis of the individual SAM data was performed using a permutation test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis of normal swallowing revealed bilateral activation of the mid-lateral primary sensorimotor cortex. Oropharyngeal anesthesia led to a pronounced decrease of both sensory and motor activation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results suggest that a short-term decrease in oropharyngeal sensory input impedes the cortical control of swallowing. Apart from diminished sensory activity, a reduced activation of the primary motor cortex was found. These findings facilitate our understanding of the pathophysiology of dysphagia.</p

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Why the Confusion About Sinus Headache?

Patients often believe they have a sinus headache when in fact the headache frequently has another cause. The diagnosis of sinus headache can be confusing because of signs and symptoms in common with migraine. Although not as common a diagnosis as migraine, sinus headache and the associated treatments can be found extensively in references on the Internet

Evaluation and Management of Sinus Headache in the Otolaryngology Practice

Patients, primary care doctors, neurologists and otolaryngologists often have differing views on what is truly causing headache in the sinonasal region. This review discusses common primary headache diagnoses that can masquerade as sinus headache or rhinogenic headache, such as migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, tension-type headache, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, giant cell arteritis (also known as temporal arteritis) and medication overuse headache, as well as the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, including cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, and hemicrania continua. Diagnostic criteria are discussed and evidence outlined that allows physicians to make better clinical diagnoses and point patients toward better treatment options

Clinical pearls in endoscopic sinus surgery: Key steps in preventing and dealing with complications

Increasing prevalence of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) makes understanding methods to preventing complications important to otolaryngologists. This commentary details clinical pearls and perioperative strategies that may minimize complications and increase preparedness for appropriate decision making in the event of a complication. Preoperative preparation is an important factor in preventing adverse events in ESS. This includes ensuring the presence of objective radiographic findings before pursuing operative management, both for patients\u27 safety as well as medicolegal reasons, and providing adequate preoperative patient education. Appreciating variants in skull base and orbital wall anatomy through preoperative imaging is crucial for avoidance of intracranial and orbital complications. The importance of optimal visualization intraoperatively and the appropriate role of CT-guided imaging are also discussed. Finally, strategies for dealing with postoperative sequelae of more common complications are noted. This article represents a brief review for introductory sinus surgeons and is not meant as an all encompassing review. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Epistaxis: the factors involved in determining medicolegal liability

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine litigation involving epistaxis and analyze factors that determine liability. MethodsJury verdicts and settlements regarding cases involving epistaxis were gathered utilizing the Westlaw database. Factors involved in litigation gathered included demographics, defendant specialty, procedure, alleged cause of malpractice, outcome, monetary award, and other variables. ResultsA total of 26 cases were analyzed. The majority of cases (57.7%) were decided in favor of the plaintiff or settled out of court. Total awards amounted to $24,501,252. Average awards for cases decided in favor of the plaintiff were$2,260,893 and ranged from $499,845 to$9,022,643. Settlements averaged $1,084,375 and ranged from$300,000 to $3,800,000. Common causes of malpractice encountered included delay in diagnosis, complications from medical procedures, and failure to recognize complications in a timely manner. ConclusionContrary to previous reports analyzing malpractice for varying medical procedures and complications, litigation in epistaxis is more commonly resolved in favor of the plaintiff or resolved through out-of-court settlements. Substantial financial awards and therapeutic complications from blindness to death make epistaxis a candidate for litigation. Of importance from a medicolegal stand is the fact that 30.8% (8) of the patients involved in epistaxis litigation died, either from complications of therapy or from experiencing epistaxis as a complication of another procedure/pathology. Using necessary diagnostic imaging, ensuring proper management techniques, and recognizing complications in a timely manner can serve to limit legal liability and enhance patient safety. (C) 2013 ARS-AAOA, LLC

AAO-HNSF CORE Grant Acquisition Is Associated with Greater Scholarly Impact

Objective To determine whether receiving funding from the American Academy of OtolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program is associated with career choice (in terms of practice setting) and scholarly impact. Study Design and Setting Examination of bibliometrics among academic otolaryngologists, including CORE grants funding history. Methods An Internet search was conducted to determine the current practice setting and, for academic otolaryngologists, academic rank of individuals receiving CORE grants since 1985. The Scopus database was used to determine scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, and publication experience (in years) of these practitioners along with a control cohort of nonfunded academic otolaryngologists. Results Of 432 unique individuals receiving CORE grant funding since 1985, 44.4% are currently academicians. This cohort had a higher h-index (mean, 11.9; median, 10; interquartile range [IQR], 6-18) than their non-CORE grant-funded academic peers (mean, 9.2; median, 7; IQR, 3-13; P = .002) and colleagues who are not currently in academic practice (mean, 4.4; median, 3; IQR, 0-6; P \u3c .001). CORE grant-funded academic otolaryngologists had a statistically higher scholarly impact on controlling for academic rank and among practitioners with greater than 10 years of publication experience. No statistical differences in academic promotion patterns were noted between those with and those without a CORE grant funding history. Conclusions Procurement of an AAO-HNSF CORE grant is associated with greater scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index. This relationship persists among practitioners with more than 10 years of publication experience, as well as upon comparison of CORE grant-funded and non-CORE grant-funded otolaryngologists at all academic ranks. Practitioners awarded these grants may be more likely to go into and remain in academic practice