Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.

Background Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical and surgical treatment is challenging. It impacts patients’ quality of life significantly. The pathophysiology of CRS has some similarities to allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) and includes eosinophilia, T‐helper cell 2 cytokines, and local immunoglobilin E formation. Monoclonal antibody therapy has been used successfully in asthma and AR and more recently in CRS. Our was aim to systematically review the literature and identify the role of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) in the treatment of CRS with polyps (CRSwNP) and without polyps (CRSsNP), especially with regard to comparability with current medical treatment, efficacy, and risk of complications. In addition, the role of surgery and biologics was evaluated. Methods We identified at total of 5341 relevant studies after a comprehensive database search. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, all 6 randomized, controlled trials. Results Treatment with omalizumab and mepolizumab demonstrated improvements in endoscopic nasal polyp score (EPS) and symptoms score in patients with CRSwNP when compared with placebo. Reslizumab reduced nasal polyp size in patients with raised intranasal interleukin‐5 levels. Dupilumab treatment resulted in a 70% reduction in EPS compared with 20% in the placebo group (p < 0.001). These MAbs target different inflammatory markers involved in the pathophysiology of CRSwNP. None of the studies reported on CRSsNP or combined surgery with biologics. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion Evidence demonstrates that use of MAbs leads to clinical improvement in CRSwNP. However, further research is required to determine their long‐term effects, comparability to other medical treatments, and potential side effects.

The aim of this study is to identify the demographics and epistaxis burden of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). A questionnaire was sent to participants with HHT who were recruited from a prospectively maintained respiratory clinic data base in a tertiary hospital. Details on demographics, HHT symptoms, family history, epistaxis severity, and treatment received were recorded. There were 34 of 60 responses (57%). Two responses were from families of the deceased. Of the 32 evaluable patients (men, 14; women 18), the average age was 51 years (range, 23–78 years). The average age of HHT diagnosis was 31 years (range, 3–61 years). The diagnosis of HHT was made by the respiratory team in 13 patients; neurologist (2); ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist (4); general practitioner (5); hematologist (4); gastroenterologist (1); and not mentioned in two patients. Twenty-seven of 32 patients (84%) had a positive family history of HHT. Only 13 patients had formal genetic testing (4 endoglin, 1 activin receptor–like kinase, 8 unknown gene). All patients who presented to the respiratory clinic had a background of epistaxis, which was noted on presentation. The average age at initial epistaxis was 14 years (range, 2–50 years). The frequency of epistaxis was daily 63% (n = 20), weekly 9% (3), monthly 16% (5), and a few times a year 10% (3), and unstated in one patient. Nine of 32 patients (28%) required a transfusion. Six patients thought that they were unable to perform daily activities due to epistaxis. Only 15 of 32 patients (47%) were under the care of an ENT specialist. The treatment plan for epistaxis management was deemed good by 7 patients, adequate in 8, poor in 6, and not stated by 11 patients. In conclusion, this survey is the first to quantify the epistaxis burden within the northeast of England. The management of epistaxis needs specific education and treatment to optimize the quality of life among these patients.

This study highlights the importance of clinical suspicion in cancer diagnosis. Although clinical suspicion cannot be quantified, it should be regarded as an integral part of patient assessment.

Our study shows a significant improvement in patient's symptoms following insertion of alar suspension sutures. It is, therefore, a reliable, safe, and effective technique in treating nasal obstruction secondary to nasal valve collapse.

Objectives To investigate factors affecting the haemostatic success of non‐dissolvable intranasal packs in the management of acute epistaxis presenting to the emergency department (ED). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting A nationwide prospective audit examining epistaxis management at 113 sites in the UK over a 30‐day period. Participants Patients 16 years or older, presenting to the ED with acute epistaxis managed with non‐dissolvable intranasal packs. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pack success, defined as successful haemostasis following nasal pack removal, not requiring further packing or surgical intervention or interventional radiology. Results A cohort of 969 patients presented with epistaxis to the ED, with nasal packs being inserted in 54.4% by ED staff and by ENT in a further 18.9%. Overall, nasal packs were successful in 87.5%. Longer duration packs (≥21 hours) were more successful than shorter‐duration packs (89.9% vs. 84.3%, χ2 P = .028). A patient survey supported longer packing duration. The most significant predictors of treatment failure were shorter packing duration (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.3; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.4‐3.8), alongside ischaemic heart disease (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.1‐3.3), normal admission haemoglobin (OR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.2‐3.4) and no attempt at cautery following pack removal (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.4‐4.2). Conclusions The majority of epistaxis patients are packed by the ED prior to referral to ENT. Once inserted, nasal packs are highly successful, with data supporting the British Rhinological Society guidance of maintaining nasal packs for around 24 hours. Further work is needed to explore alternatives to non‐dissolvable intranasal packs to improve patient experience in epistaxis.

Objective: It is generally accepted that with experience, clinicians develop an ability to identify patients who present with neoplasia prior to any diagnostic procedure or investigation. However, this cannot be quantified, nor is it a plausible substitute to investigation. We aim to evaluate the association between instinct and diagnosis of cancer. Method: A prospective study of patients in the outpatient department between August and December 2010 was performed. Patients requiring urgent procedures for suspected cancer were included. Risk factors, symptoms, signs, and the clinicians’ impression were recorded. This was graded from 1 (highly unlikely) to 10 (very likely) and subsequently correlated with histology. Results: Twenty-seven patients underwent a diagnostic procedure. The mean age was 62.2 years. A total of 29.6% of the patients were referred under the 2-week rule. Of the patients, 18.5% had a previous history of head and neck cancer. The number of patients presenting with 1 symptom was 40.7%, with 2 symptoms was 40.7%, with 3 symptoms 11.1%, and with 4 symptoms 7.4%. A total of 37% of the patients had a cancer diagnosis. The procedure was cancelled for one patient because of illness. There was a positive correlation between clinical suspicion and cancer diagnosis (Kendall’s tau b = 0.648749). However, the number of symptoms did not correlate with abnormal histology (Kendall’s tau = −0.333333). Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of clinical suspicion in diagnosis of cancer. Reliance on presence or absence of clinical signs alone may lead to missing a diagnosis. Although clinical suspicion cannot be quantified it should be regarded as an integral factor in patient management.

Background: The endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure (EMLP) is a common procedure performed in patients with frontal sinus pathology. While performing this procedure, large segments of bone are exposed, which may lead to the promotion of frontal sinus neo-ostium stenosis. Here we examine the peri-operative differences in time to achieve healing in patients where a mucosal flap is used to cover the exposed bone on one side of the neo-ostium. Design: A randomised pilot study with 12 patients undergoing EMLP surgery participated in this study. Methods: Patients were randomised to undergo a mucosal flap on either the left or right side of the neo-ostium. Prior to surgery, patients completed a SNOT-22 and smell identification test. Patients were reviewed until the neo-ostium had healed on both sides. Once healing had occurred, a post-operative SNOT-22 score and smell identification test were recorded. Results: Average time to healing for the frontal sinus neo-ostium was 4.7 vs. 4.2 (p = 0.3) on the flap vs. non-flap side, respectively. There was an average 24.4 point (range: −75 to +9) decrease in SNOT-22 scores post-surgery. The post-operative USPIT score demonstrated an average increase of 6.6 points (range −13 to +27). Conclusion: We did not detect significant differences in peri-operative time toward healing in neo-ostiums where a single flap is utilised. Further studies are needed to determine whether the usage of a single neo-ostium flap affords any benefit over no flap on either ostium. SNOT-22 and UPSIT scores improved post-surgery.