Comparison of bacterial maxillary sinus cultures between odontogenic sinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND: Bacterial odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from other forms of rhinosinusitis. Diagnosing ODS can be challenging because of nonspecific clinical presentations and underrepresentation in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare maxillary sinus bacterial cultures between patients with ODS and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), to determine whether certain bacteria are associated with ODS. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of 276 consecutive patients from August 2015 to August 2019 who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for bacterial ODS, CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), or CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). When present, pus was sterilely cultured from maxillary sinuses after maxillary antrostomy, and aerobic and anaerobic cultures were immediately sent for processing. Demographics and culture results were compared between ODS and CRS patients, and then separately between ODS and CRSsNP, and ODS and CRSwNP. ODS culture results were also compared between different dental pathologies (endodontic vs oroantral fistula). RESULTS: The following bacteria were significantly more likely in ODS compared to CRS: mixed anaerobes, Fusobacterium spp., Eikenella corrodens, Streptococcus intermedius, Streptococcus anginosus, and Streptococcus constellatus. Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inversely related to ODS. There were no significant differences in cultures between the different dental pathologies. CONCLUSION: Certain bacteria were more likely to be associated with ODS compared to CRS when purulence was cultured from the maxillary sinus. Physicians should evaluate for an odontogenic source of sinusitis when these ODS-associated bacteria are identified in maxillary sinus cultures

Informational entropy : a failure tolerance and reliability surrogate for water distribution networks

Evolutionary algorithms are used widely in optimization studies on water distribution networks. The optimization algorithms use simulation models that analyse the networks under various operating conditions. The solution process typically involves cost minimization along with reliability constraints that ensure reasonably satisfactory performance under abnormal operating conditions also. Flow entropy has been employed previously as a surrogate reliability measure. While a body of work exists for a single operating condition under steady state conditions, the effectiveness of flow entropy for systems with multiple operating conditions has received very little attention. This paper describes a multi-objective genetic algorithm that maximizes the flow entropy under multiple operating conditions for any given network. The new methodology proposed is consistent with the maximum entropy formalism that requires active consideration of all the relevant information. Furthermore, an alternative but equivalent flow entropy model that emphasizes the relative uniformity of the nodal demands is described. The flow entropy of water distribution networks under multiple operating conditions is discussed with reference to the joint entropy of multiple probability spaces, which provides the theoretical foundation for the optimization methodology proposed. Besides the rationale, results are included that show that the most robust or failure-tolerant solutions are achieved by maximizing the sum of the entropies

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries