Journal of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery 

About: Journal of Otolaryngology-head & Neck Surgery is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Otorhinolaryngology & Population. Over the lifetime, 1207 publications have been published receiving 15713 citations.

Trends in CPAP adherence over twenty years of data collection: a flattened curve

Abstract: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder, and continuous airway positive pressure (CPAP) is considered to be the gold standard of therapy. CPAP however is known to have problems with adherence, with many patients eventually abandoning the device. The purpose of this paper is to assess secular trends in CPAP adherence over the long term to see if there have been meaningful improvements in adherence in light of the multiple interventions proposed to do so. A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted using the Medline-Ovid, Embase, and Pubmed databases, searching for data regarding CPAP adherence over a twenty year timeframe (1994–2015). Data was assessed for quality and then extracted. The main outcome measure was reported CPAP non-adherence. Secondary outcomes included changes in CPAP non-adherence when comparing short versus long-term, and changes in terms of behavioral counseling. Eighty-two papers met study inclusion/exclusion criteria. The overall CPAP non-adherence rate based on a 7-h/night sleep time that was reported in studies conducted over the twenty year time frame was 34.1 %. There was no significant improvement over the time frame. Behavioral intervention improved adherence rates by ~1 h per night on average. The rate of CPAP adherence remains persistently low over twenty years worth of reported data. No clinically significant improvement in CPAP adherence was seen even in recent years despite efforts toward behavioral intervention and patient coaching. This low rate of adherence is problematic, and calls into question the concept of CPAP as gold-standard of therapy for OSA.

Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis.

Abstract: This document provides health care practitioners with information regarding the management of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) to enable them to better meet the needs of this patient population. These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape. Recent guidelines in ABRS have been released by American and European groups as recently as 2007, but these are either limited in their coverage of the subject of CRS, do not follow an evidence-based strategy, or omit relevant stakeholders in the development of guidelines and do not address the particulars of the Canadian health care environment.Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of CRS, along with the development of appropriate therapeutic strategies, have improved outcomes for patients with CRS. CRS now affects large numbers of patients globally, and primary care practitioners are confronted by this disease on a daily basis. Although initially considered a chronic bacterial infection, CRS is now recognized as having multiple distinct components (eg, infection, inflammation), which have led to changes in therapeutic approaches (eg, increased use of corticosteroids). The role of bacteria in the persistence of chronic infections and the roles of surgical and medical management are evolving. Although evidence is limited, guidance for managing patients with CRS would help practitioners less experienced in this area offer rational care. It is no longer reasonable to manage CRS as a prolonged version of ARS, but, rather, specific therapeutic strategies adapted to pathogenesis must be developed and diffused.Guidelines must take into account all available evidence and incorporate these in an unbiased fashion into management recommendations based on the quality of evidence, therapeutic benefit, and risks incurred. This document is focused on readability rather than completeness yet covers relevant information, offers summaries of areas where considerable evidence exists, and provides recommendations with an assessment of the strength of the evidence base and the degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document.These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Early recovery following new onset anosmia during the COVID-19 pandemic - an observational cohort study.

Abstract: A rapidly evolving evidence suggests that smell and taste disturbance are common symptoms in COVID-19 infection. As yet there are no reports on duration and recovery rates. We set out to characterise patients reporting new onset smell and taste disturbance during the COVID-19 pandemic and report on early recovery rates. Online Survey of patients reporting self-diagnosed new onset smell and taste disturbance during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 1 week follow-up. Three hundred eighty-two patents completed bot an initial and follow-up survey. 86.4% reported complete anosmia and a further 11.5% a very severe loss of smell at the time of completing the first survey. At follow-up 1 week later, there is already significant improvement in self-rating of severity of olfactory loss. 80.1% report lower severity scores at follow-up, 17.6% are unchanged and 1.9% are worse. 11.5% already report compete resolution at follow up, while 17.3% report persistent complete loss of smell, with reported duration being 1 to over 4 weeks. This is reflected in the overall cumulative improvement rate of 79% patients overall in the interval between surveys. A review of the growing evidence base supports the likelihood that out cohort have suffered olfactory loss as part of COVID-19 infection. While early recovery rates are encouraging, long term rates will need to be further investigated and there may be an increase in patients with persistent post-viral loss as a result of the pandemic. We further call for loss of sense of smell to be formerly recognised as a marker of COVID-19 infection.

Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: a literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options

Abstract: Noise-induced hearing loss is one of the most common forms of sensorineural hearing loss, is a major health problem, is largely preventable and is probably more widespread than revealed by conventional pure tone threshold testing. Noise-induced damage to the cochlea is traditionally considered to be associated with symmetrical mild to moderate hearing loss with associated tinnitus; however, there is a significant number of patients with asymmetrical thresholds and, depending on the exposure, severe to profound hearing loss as well. Recent epidemiology and animal studies have provided further insight into the pathophysiology, clinical findings, social and economic impacts of noise-induced hearing loss. Furthermore, it is recently shown that acoustic trauma is associated with vestibular dysfunction, with associated dizziness that is not always measurable with current techniques. Deliberation of the prevalence, treatment and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss is important and timely. Currently, prevention and protection are the first lines of defence, although promising protective effects are emerging from multiple different pharmaceutical agents, such as steroids, antioxidants and neurotrophins. This review provides a comprehensive update on the pathophysiology, investigations, prevalence of asymmetry, associated symptoms, and current strategies on the prevention and treatment of noise-induced hearing loss.

Aerosol-generating otolaryngology procedures and the need for enhanced PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review.

Abstract: Adequate personal protective equipment is needed to reduce the rate of transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. Otolaryngology groups are recommending a higher level of personal protective equipment for aerosol-generating procedures than public health agencies. The objective of the review was to provide evidence that a.) demonstrates which otolaryngology procedures are aerosol-generating, and that b.) clarifies whether the higher level of PPE advocated by otolaryngology groups is justified. Health care workers in China who performed tracheotomy during the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic had 4.15 times greater odds of contracting the virus than controls who did not perform tracheotomy (95% CI 2.75–7.54). No other studies provide direct epidemiological evidence of increased aerosolized transmission of viruses during otolaryngology procedures. Experimental evidence has shown that electrocautery, advanced energy devices, open suctioning, and drilling can create aerosolized biological particles. The viral load of COVID-19 is highest in the upper aerodigestive tract, increasing the likelihood that aerosols generated during procedures of the upper aerodigestive tract of infected patients would carry viral material. Cough and normal breathing create aerosols which may increase the risk of transmission during outpatient procedures. A significant proportion of individuals infected with COVID-19 may not have symptoms, raising the likelihood of transmission of the disease to inadequately protected health care workers from patients who do not have probable or confirmed infection. Powered air purifying respirators, if used properly, provide a greater level of filtration than N95 masks and thus may reduce the risk of transmission. Direct and indirect evidence suggests that a large number of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery procedures are aerosol generating. Otolaryngologists are likely at high risk of contracting COVID-19 during aerosol generating procedures because they are likely exposed to high viral loads in patients infected with the virus. Based on the precautionary principle, even though the evidence is not definitive, adopting enhanced personal protective equipment protocols is reasonable based on the evidence. Further research is needed to clarify the risk associated with performing various procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the degree to which various personal protective equipment reduces the risk.