Objective Bell’s palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mono-neuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. Bell’s palsy is a rapid unilateral facial nerve paresis (weakness) or paralysis (complete loss of movement) of unknown cause. The condition leads to the partial or complete inability to voluntarily move facial muscles on the affected side of the face. Although typically self-limited, the facial paresis/paralysis that occurs in Bell’s palsy may cause significant temporary oral incompetence and an inability to close the eyelid, leading to potential eye injury. Additional long-term poor outcomes do occur and can be devastating to the patient. Treatments are generally designed to improve facial function and facilitate recovery. There are myriad treatment options for Bell’s palsy, and some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, numerous diagnostic tests available are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell’s palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell’s palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell’s palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell’s palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell’s palsy. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis for Bell’s palsy, to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with Bell’s palsy, and to decrease harmful variations in the evaluation and management of Bell’s palsy. This guideline addresses these needs by encouraging accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitating patient follow-up to address the management of long-term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell’s palsy. The guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with Bell’s palsy. The target population is inclusive of both adults and children presenting with Bell’s palsy. Action Statements The development group made a strong recommendation that (a) clinicians should assess the patient using history and physical examination to exclude identifiable causes of facial paresis or paralysis in patients presenting with acute-onset unilateral facial paresis or paralysis, (b) clinicians should prescribe oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for Bell’s palsy patients 16 years and older, (c) clinicians should not prescribe oral antiviral therapy alone for patients with new-onset Bell’s palsy, and (d) clinicians should implement eye protection for Bell’s palsy patients with impaired eye closure. The panel made recommendations that (a) clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new-onset Bell’s palsy, (b) clinicians should not routinely perform diagnostic imaging for patients with new-onset Bell’s palsy, (c) clinicians should not perform electrodiagnostic testing in Bell’s palsy patients with incomplete facial paralysis, and (d) clinicians should reassess or refer to a facial nerve specialist those Bell’s palsy patients with (1) new or worsening neurologic findings at any point, (2) ocular symptoms developing at any point, or (3) incomplete facial recovery 3 months after initial symptom onset. The development group provided the following options: (a) clinicians may offer oral antiviral therapy in addition to oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for patients with Bell’s palsy, and (b) clinicians may offer electrodiagnostic testing to Bell’s palsy patients with complete facial paralysis. The development group offered the following no recommendations: (a) no recommendation can be made regarding surgical decompression for patients with Bell’s palsy, (b) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of acupuncture in patients with Bell’s palsy, and (c) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of physical therapy in patients with Bell’s palsy.

Poor rehabilitation results may be attributable to increased severity of vestibular insult, progressive peripheral or central vestibular dysfunction, and multiple medical problems.

Certain distinct populations of neurons in the dorsal cochlear nucleus are inhibited by a neural source that is responsive to a wide range of acoustic frequencies. In this study, we examined the glycine immunoreactivity of two types of ventral cochlear nucleus neurons (planar and radiate) in the rat which project to the dorsal cochlear nucleus (DCN) and thus, might be responsible for this inhibition. Previously, we proposed that planar neurons provided a tonotopic and narrowly tuned input to the DCN, whereas radiate neurons provided a broadly tuned input and thus, were strong candidates as the source of broadband inhibition (Doucet and Ryugo [1997] J. Comp. Neurol. 385:245-264). We tested this idea by combining retrograde labeling and glycine immunohistochemical protocols. Planar and radiate neurons were first retrogradely labeled by injecting biotinylated dextran amine into a restricted region of the dorsal cochlear nucleus. The labeled cells were visualized using streptavidin conjugated to indocarbocyanine (Cy3), a fluorescent marker. Sections that contained planar or radiate neurons were then processed for glycine immunocytochemistry using diaminobenzidine as the chromogen. Immunostaining of planar neurons was light, comparable to that of excitatory neurons (pyramidal neurons in the DCN), whereas immunostaining of radiate neurons was dark, comparable to that of glycinergic neurons (cartwheel cells in the dorsal cochlear nucleus and principal cells in the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body). These results are consistent with the hypothesis that radiate neurons in the ventral cochlear nucleus subserve the wideband inhibition observed in the dorsal cochlear nucleus.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) commonly present with nasal obstruction, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain, and hyposmia of prolonged duration. Recent evidence suggests that, despite clinical similarities, CRS and CRSwNP are distinct entities with separate inflammatory pathways and cytokine profiles. Antibiotics and nasal steroids are the mainstay of treatment in CRS, whereas combination systemic and nasal steroids are the foundation of CRSwNP management. Allergy therapy may play a significant role in CRS, whereas antileukotriene therapy has demonstrated promise in CRSwNP. Although prolonged medical therapy is usually necessary with both disorders, surgery may also be required to relieve refractory symptoms, and to improve sinus aeration and nasal access for topical therapy.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation has published a supplement to this issue of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery featuring the "Clinical Practice Guideline: Evaluation of the Neck Mass in Adults." To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 12 recommendations developed emphasize reducing delays in diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; promoting appropriate testing, including imaging, pathologic evaluation, and empiric medical therapies; reducing inappropriate testing; and promoting appropriate physical examination when cancer is suspected.

Background: Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods: Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidencebased review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion:This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.