A Child Presenting with a Bullet in the Middle Ear: Case Report

Full open access to this an

Effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices: a Thai multicentre survey

Background Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for nasal diseases. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients and physicians. Methods We conducted a multicentre survey study between November 2017 and October 2018. Physician and patient questionnaires were developed based on the available literature and expert opinion. The physician questionnaire was submitted to the Otolaryngology residents and staff of each centre and their network. The physicians were also asked to distribute the patient questionnaire to their patients. Results Information regarding 331 devices used by the patients was collected. The mean age of the patients was 45.46 ± 17.19 years (from 5 to 81). Roughly half were male, and half were female (48.6%: 51.4%). Among the high-pressure devices, we found that the high-pressure large-volume nasal irrigation devices yielded significantly higher symptom scores in seven of 12 domains (p < 0.05). Among the large-volume devices, we found that the large-volume high-pressure nasal irrigation devices received significantly higher symptom scores in 4 of 12 domains (p < 0.05). However, a higher proportion of patients using the large-volume high-pressure devices had retained fluid in the sinuses compared to those using large-volume low-pressure devices (p < 0.001). Conclusions This survey supports the regular use of nasal irrigation, particularly with large-volume high-pressure devices, as an effective treatment for nasal disease. It may be effective at clearing nasal secretion, improve nasal congestion, decrease post-nasal drip, improve sinus pain or headache, improve taste and smell, and improve sleep quality. It could be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects

The sensitivity and specificity of methylene blue spray to identify the parathyroid gland during thyroidectomy

Background Hypocalcemia is a common complication of thyroidectomy resulting from an injury to the parathyroid gland. Methylene blue, which is a medication and dye that has been used for more than a century, is safe and readily available. The previous study has found that methylene blue spray on the surgical field is absorbed by the parathyroid gland faster than in the perithyroidal area. This study was aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of methylene blue spray to identify the parathyroid gland during thyroid lobectomy. Methods Patients who underwent thyroid lobectomy were recruited. After the recurrent laryngeal nerve was identified, methylene blue was sprayed onto the thyroid bed. After 5 min, the thyroid bed was inspected for areas in which the blue color had been rapidly absorbed. Biopsies were conducted for histopathology at both the stained area and the area in which the color had faded. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Results A total of 47 patients participated in this study. The sensitivity of methylene blue spray to identify the parathyroid gland during thyroid lobectomy was 92.31% (95% CI [63.97–99.81]) and specificity was 56.79% (95% CI [45.31–67.76]). The PPV was 25.53% (95% CI [20.34–31.53]) and NPV was 97.87% (95% CI [87.39–99.67]). There were no patients with post-operative hypocalcemia, allergic reactions to the methylene blue, or methylene blue toxicity. Conclusion The methylene blue spray could serve as a screening tool for identification of the parathyroid gland

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in related inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (currently, monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse events (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs. Of 986 adult participants, 984 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (score 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, the SNOT-22 score was 19.61 points lower (better) in participants receiving dupilumab (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). Symptom severity measured on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.00 lower in those receiving dupilumab (95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). The risk of serious adverse events may be lower in the dupilumab group (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.75; 3 studies; 782 participants; low certainty).  The number of participants requiring nasal polyp surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period is probably lower in those receiving dupilumab (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52; 2 studies; 725 participants; moderate certainty). Change in the extent of disease using the Lund Mackay computerised tomography (CT) score (0 to 24, higher = worse) was -7.00 (95% CI -9.61 to -4.39; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty), a large effect favouring the dupilumab group.  The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (0 to 100, higher = better; MCID 8 points) was used to measure change in generic quality of life. The mean difference favouring dupilumab was 8.59 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.86; 2 studies; 706 participants; moderate certainty). There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 3 studies; 783 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL measured with the SNOT-22 at 25 weeks was 13.26 points lower (better) in participants receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in s ymptom severity: on a 0- to 10-point VAS symptom severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether or not the overall risk that patients still need surgery at trial end is lower in the mepolizumab group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether mepolizumab reduces the extent of disease as measured by endoscopic nasal polyps score (scale range 0 to 8). The mean difference was 1.23 points lower in the mepolizumab group (MD -1.23, 95% -1.79 to -0.68; 2 studies; 137 participants; very low certainty). The difference in generic quality of life (EQ-5D) was 5.68 (95% CI -1.18 to 12.54; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty), favouring the mepolizumab group. This difference is smaller than the MCID of 8 points. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.73, 95% 0.36 to 1.47; 2 studies; 135 participants; low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three very small studies (65 participants) evaluated omalizumab. We are very uncertain about the effect of omalizumab on disease-specific HRQL, severe adverse events, extent of disease (CT scan scores), generic HRQL and adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, using regular topical nasal steroids, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo, and reduces the extent of the disease as measured on a CT scan. It probably also improves symptoms and generic HRQL and there is no evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events. It may reduce the need for further surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. In similar patients, mepolizumab may improve both disease-specific and generic HRQL. It is uncertain whether it reduces the need for surgery or improves nasal polyp scores. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. It is uncertain if there is a difference in symptom severity and the risk of serious adverse events. We are uncertain about the effects of omalizumab

Fractured metallic tracheostomy tube in a child: a case report and review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Tracheostomy is a common airway procedure for life support. The fracture of the tracheostomy tube is a rare complication. We report a case of a 14-year-old boy whose fractured stainless steel tracheostomy tube dislodged into the tracheobronchial tree. We include a literature review and proposed recommendations for tracheostomy care.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 14-year-old Thai boy who had a stainless steel tracheostomy tube presented with a complaint of intermittent cough for 2 months. During tracheostomy tube cleaning, his parents found that the inner tube was missing. A chest X-ray revealed a metallic density foreign body in his right main bronchus. He underwent bronchoscopic removal of the inner tracheostomy tube and was discharged without further complications.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A fractured tracheostomy tube is a rare complication. Appropriate cleaning and scheduled replacement of the tracheostomy tube may prevent this complication.</p

Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention.The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placeboThree studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants).One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups.One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroidsOne study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroidsOne study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroidsOne study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found.Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported.No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria.More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required

Virtual reality for the training of ear surgery

© 2016 Dr. Patorn PiromchaiIn current residency surgical training programs, residents learn by observing their mentor and practicing under his/her supervision. For patient safety, the mentor needs to ensure that residents have sufficient practice before they perform surgery on patients. Simulation, ranging from low fidelity (e.g. suture practice on rubber models) to high fidelity (e.g. cadaveric temporal bone dissection), is ideal for this purpose and cadaveric bone dissection is the gold standard of simulated training for temporal bone surgery. However, it has a few setbacks. For example, it is limited by the shortage of cadaveric temporal bones and the bones have to be discarded after drilling and cannot be reused. Also, it is difficult to ensure that residents are exposed to a wide range of temporal bones, specifically ones with rare anatomical anomalies. Another concern is that illnesses may be transmitted through contact with diseased tissues and fluids. Virtual reality surgical simulation is an alternative form of high fidelity simulation that offers risk-free, relatively low cost training environments that can be used repeatedly if necessary at the convenience of the user. Reviews have found that practicing surgical procedures on virtual reality simulators improves trainees' operative performance. One major factor contributing to the success of virtual reality surgical simulation systems is their ability to capture clinical variation. Current simulators in Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) surgery mostly use the core training methodology: starting from easier procedures and moving onto more difficult ones. However, this configuration has traditionally been based on the same anatomical model. To the author’s best knowledge, there do not exist virtual reality simulators in the field of ENT that capture anatomical variation as a basis for surgical education. The aim of this thesis was to determine whether exposure to anatomical variation in a virtual reality simulated environment leads to better surgical outcomes, to establish the foundations of a more efficient model for surgical education. To achieve this goal, several investigations were carried out. Firstly, a systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to examine the role of virtual reality simulation based training in ENT surgery, and to investigate whether it can improve the acquisition of surgical skills. This has revealed that there is currently no literature available in this field to inform whether anatomical variation is important for improving outcomes in simulation based surgical training. Secondly, methods were developed to identify internal anatomical structure variation of temporal bones by examining the bony surface landmarks in an effort to guide the selection of specimens that exhibit differences in anatomy. To this end, correlations between internal and external landmarks were determined and mathematical models developed to predict internal structure variation given combinations of multiple external landmarks using a library of CT scans. It was observed that these correlations and mathematical models were able to predict some anatomical variations with a high level of accuracy. Thirdly, to standardize the evaluation of competence in cochleostomy, an objective assessment tool was developed and validated. Its construct validity and inter-rater reliability were established to be high through evaluations of resident and expert performances on a standardized virtual temporal bone conducted by expert assessors using the proposed tool. Lastly, a randomised controlled trial of ENT residents performing cochleostomy was conducted to determine whether anatomical variation in virtual reality simulation based training improved surgical performance. Participants were randomly allocated to two groups: the experimental group who were exposed to a six different temporal bone anatomies over a period of three weeks and the control group who were trained on one standardized temporal bone over the same period of time. At the end of the training period participants’ performance on two novel temporal bones was assessed. It was observed that ENT residents who were exposed to a range of anatomical variations performed significantly better than those trained on a single anatomical model

Ototoxicity of povidone-iodine – A case report

Objective: The ototoxicity of povidone-iodine has been documented in animal studies. However, there is limited evidence of these ototoxic effects in humans. This is the first report to show the ototoxic effects of povidone-iodine in a human subject. Patient: A 36-year-old woman came to our hospital complaining of left unilateral persistent hearing loss. One month before presentation, her child had accidentally struck her on her left ear. She applied approximately three drops of povidone-iodine (10% weight/volume) into her left auditory canal. Immediately after application, she felt severe pain and vertigo. An audiogram revealed severe left unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Magnetic resonance imaging showed mild enhancement of the left vestibule and basal turn of the left cochlea. Conclusions: Even a single application of povidone-iodine could cause significant hearing loss and disequilibrium. It should, therefore, be used with caution. Keywords: Povidone-iodine, Ototoxicit