Our aim was to prospectively determine the predictive capabilities of SEPSIS-1 and SEPSIS-3 definitions in the emergency departments and general wards. Patients with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled over a 24-h period in 13 Welsh hospitals. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 30 days. Out of the 5422 patients screened, 431 fulfilled inclusion criteria and 380 (88%) were recruited. Using the SEPSIS-1 definition, 212 patients had sepsis. When using the SEPSIS-3 definitions with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, there were 272 septic patients, whereas with quickSOFA score ≥ 2, 50 patients were identified. For the prediction of primary outcome, SEPSIS-1 criteria had a sensitivity (95%CI) of 65% (54-75%) and specificity of 47% (41-53%); SEPSIS-3 criteria had a sensitivity of 86% (76-92%) and specificity of 32% (27-38%). SEPSIS-3 and SEPSIS-1 definitions were associated with a hazard ratio (95%CI) 2.7 (1.5-5.6) and 1.6 (1.3-2.5), respectively. Scoring system discrimination evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves was highest for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69 (95%CI 0.63-0.76)), followed by NEWS (0.58 (0.51-0.66)) (p < 0.001). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (0.55 (0.49-0.61)) and quickSOFA score (0.56 (0.49-0.64)) could not predict outcome. The SEPSIS-3 definition identified patients with the highest risk. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and NEWS were better predictors of poor outcome. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score appeared to be the best tool for identifying patients with high risk of death and sepsis-induced organ dysfunction.

Lateral endoscopic access to the walls of the frontal sinus is excellent except for the sinus floor. Access to the orbital roof is reliable in the medial quarter only and minimal lateral to the midorbital point. The ability to predict the areas accessible by the endoscopic approach and those areas that might require ancillary approaches is important for both surgical planning and patient expectations.

Background Although endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (endo‐DCR) is a common treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction, little is known about the determinants of surgical success and failure. The purpose of this study was to identify patient‐ and technique‐specific factors that may influence surgical outcomes of primary and revision endo‐DCR. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 596 patients who underwent endo‐DCR over a 30‐year period (1989‐2018). Patients’ demographics and surgical techniques were assessed. Results Among the cohort of patients (n = 478) who underwent primary endo‐DCR, 10% (n = 48) required revision surgery. Patients who failed primary DCR tended to be younger (p = 0.015) and were less likely to have chronic sinonasal inflammation on histopathology (p = 0.047) than the successful surgery group. After adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities, the occurrence of a postoperative complication was significantly associated with primary DCR failure (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; p = 0.032). Among the cohort of patients (n = 118) who underwent revision endo‐DCR, 8.5% (n = 10) required additional revision surgery. Patients who failed revision DCR tended to be younger (p = 0.022), more likely to have had intraoperative laser usage (p = 0.031), and more likely to have had an intraoperative complication (p = 0.013) than the successful revision surgery group. Endo‐DCR failure was not associated with smoking status, middle turbinate resection, or intraoperative visualization of the internal common punctum (p > 0.05). Conclusion An understanding of factors associated with primary and revision endo‐DCR failure can help to inform preoperative counseling, intraoperative surgical technique, and postoperative care in the treatment of patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Endoscopic endonasal orbital surgery is evolving. With increasing knowledge, expertise, and technology, the historical limits of the endonasal endoscopic approach to the orbit have been redefined. This review discusses the clinical presentation and etiology, and highlights the pertinent anatomy, and discusses the diagnostic workup and surgical approach to orbital tumors and post‐operative care. The role of the multidisciplinary team is not to be underestimated. The introduction of a classification system to ensure standardization of technical difficulty and outcome data will assist with international collaboration and further consolidate our attainment of knowledge in this developing field.