Chronic rhinosinusitis and mood disturbance

BACKGROUND: This study is part of the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study (CRES). The overarching aim is to determine factors that influence the onset and severity of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The aim of this analysis is to determine whether those with CRS are more likely to report psychiatric morbidity and in particular mood disturbance compared with healthy controls.  METHODS: CRES consists of a study-specific questionnaire regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors and past medical history as well as a nasal symptom score (SNOT-22) and SF-36 (QoL - quality of life tool). Both of these tools contain mental health or emotional well-being domains. Participants were specifically asked whether they had ever consulted with their General Practitioner for anxiety or depression. Questionnaires were distributed to patients with CRS attending ENT outpatient clinics at 30 centres across the United Kingdom from 2007-2013. Controls were also recruited at these sites. Patients were divided into subgroups of CRS according to the absence/presence of polyps (CRSsNPs/CRSwNPs) or allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS).  RESULTS: Consultations with a family physician for depression or anxiety were higher amongst those with CRS than controls, but this was only significant for those with CRSsNPs. Odds ratio (OR) for CRSsNPs vs controls: 1.89; OR for CRSwNPs: 1.40. Patients with CRS showed significantly higher mental health morbidity than controls across the mental health and emotional wellbeing domains of the SF-36 and SNOT-22. Mean difference in the mental health domain of SF-36 was 8.3 for CRSsNPs and 5.3 for CRSwNPs. For the emotional domain of SNOT-22, differences were 7.7 and 6.3 respectively.  CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety are significantly more common in patients with CRS compared to healthy controls, especially in those with CRSsNPs. This added mental health morbidity needs consideration when managing these patients in primary and secondary care settings

SNOT-22 in a Control Population

AIM: To assess SNOT-22 and its subscales in a non-rhinosinusitis UK-wide population.  METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE: This analysis uses data from the 'Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study' (CRES) which recruited from 30 centres across the UK, and the Socioeconomic Cost of ChrOnic Rhinosinusitis study' (SocCoR); 250 volunteers without CRS were recruited as part of these studies. Study-specific questionnaires including demographics, socioeconomic factors and past medical history as well as SNOT-22 and SF-36 were distributed. The control (non-CRS) population had no self-reported nasal problems in the past, no chronic conditions undergoing active treatment and no hospital admissions in the preceding 12 months.  RESULTS: The mean SNOT-22 total score overall was 12.0. The mean was 10.2 for males with a median of 6.5, and a mean of 13.2 for females with a median of 9. Females scored significantly more highly than males on the sleep/fatigue and facial domains.  CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate differences in SNOT-22 amongst males and females. These data can be used in future studies for comparison with different disease populations with rhinosinusitis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Current use of baseline medical treatment in chronic rhinosinusitis: Data from the National Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study (CRES)

Objectives: According to clinical and comissioning guidelines for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), patients being referred to secondary care should have failed primary medical treatment with nasal douching (ND) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS). The study objectives were to identify the rate of specific medical therapy in CRS patients and establish any differences in medication use, for both CRS and associated medical conditions, between CRS phenotypes.  Design and setting: Case-control study in a secondary care setting.  Methods: Participant-reported study-specific questionnaire capturing free text data on current medication use at the time of study entry. Qualitative interviews with 21 participants also explored their experience of CRS and its management.  Particpants: Patients with both without (CRSsNPs) and with polyps (CRSwNPs). Main outcome measuresReported use of CRS-related and non-related medications.ResultsWithin a total of 1243 CRS participants, current INCS usage was low (18% in CRSwNPs, 12% in CRSsNPs); ND was being performed by only 1% of all participants. Bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids use was significantly higher in CRSwNPs participants (p < 0.0001). Antidepressants use was significantly higher in CRSsNPs (14% versus 7%, p < 0.0002). There were no significant regional variations in rates of INCS use, nor any significant influence of social deprivation.  Conclusions: The current use of baseline medical therapy in CRS appears to be very low, representing a combination of poor patient compliance, possible ineffectiveness of treatment and a lack of familiarity with current guidelines amongst general practitioners and some ENT specialists. Work is needed to disseminate guidelines to all practitioners involved and reduce unnecessary burden on existing healthcare resources for this common condition by ensuring timely referral and definitive management

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

Transillumination-Assisted Maxillary Trephination: Cadaver Validation of a New Technique

The definitive version may be found at www.wiley.comNeil C.-W. Tan, Steve R. Floreani, Simon Robinson,Salil Nair, Vishnu S. Sunkaraneni, Callum Faris and Peter John Wormal

Guillotine tonsillectomy: a neglected technique

Background Increased post-operative tonsillectomy haemorrhage rates have been observed following ‘hot’ tonsillectomy techniques, compared with ‘cold steel’ dissection. Post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage rates and the degree of blood loss during guillotine tonsillectomy have not been reported in the recent literature.Methods This retrospective case note review assessed the degree of blood loss during guillotine tonsillectomy, as measured by the number of tonsil swabs used, and the post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage rate.Results In a group of 168 patients, no tonsil swabs were used in 13.1 per cent of cases, and less than two tonsil swabs were used in 41.1 per cent of cases.Conclusion Guillotine tonsillectomy, when performed by the method described in this article, resulted in minimal intra-operative blood loss in 54 per cent of cases, and appeared to have comparable post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage rates to cold steel dissection techniques