Frontal sinus fractures are an uncommon injury of the maxillofacial skeleton, and account for 5–15% of all maxillofacial fractures. As the force of impact increases, fractures may extend beyond the anterior table to involve adjacent skull, posterior table and frontal sinus outflow tract (FSOT). Fractures at these subsites should be evaluated independently to assess the need for and type of operative intervention. Historically, these fractures were managed aggressively with open techniques resulting in obliteration or cranialization. With significant injuries, these approaches are still indispensable. However, the treatment of frontal sinus fractures has changed dramatically over the past half-century, and recent case series have demonstrated favorable outcomes with conservative management. Concurrently, there has been an increasing role of minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, both for primary and expectant management, with a focus on sinus preservation. Here, we review the diagnosis and management of frontal sinus fractures, with an emphasis on subsite evaluation. Following a detailed assessment, an appropriate treatment strategy is selected from a variety of open and minimally invasive approaches available in the surgeon's armamentarium.

IMPORTANCE Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with substantial morbidity and is the most common factor associated with preventable death among hospitalized patients. Data from otolaryngologic studies suggest that the risk of VTE may be underestimated among high-risk patients, particularly among those undergoing oncologic procedures. The incorporation of prolonged-duration chemoprophylaxis (PDC) into preventive therapy has been associated with substantial decreases in VTE incidence among patients undergoing oncologic surgery. However, bleeding remains a major concern among otolaryngologists, and substantial variation exists in the use of thromboprophylaxis.OBJECTIVE To assess the association between PDC and VTE in high-risk patients with head and neck cancer undergoing oncologic procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study identified 750 patients with biopsy-confirmed head and neck cancer and a Caprini risk score of 8 or higher who underwent inpatient oncologic surgery at a tertiary care referral center between January 1, 2014, and February 1, 2020. After exclusions, 247 patients were included in the study; patients were divided into 2 cohorts, traditional and PDC, based on the duration of prophylaxis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine the development of VTE and bleeding-associated complications during the 30-day postoperative period. Data were analyzed from April 1 to April 30, 2020.EXPOSURES PDC, defined as 7 or more postoperative days of chemoprophylaxis.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES VTE and bleeding events during the 30-day postoperative period.RESULTS Among 247 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [11.1] years; 180 men [72.9%]) included in the study, 106 patients (42.9%) received traditional prophylaxis, and 141 patients (57.1%) received PDC. The incidence of VTE was 5 of 106 patients (4.7%) in the traditional cohort and 1 of 141 patients (0.7%) in the PDC cohort (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.003-1.33). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, PDC was independently associated with reductions in the risk of VTE (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.46). The incidence of bleeding events was 1 of 106 patients (0.9%) in the traditional cohort and 6 of 141 patients (4.3%) in the PDC cohort (OR, 4.64; 95% CI,. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe use of chemoprophylaxis for high-risk patients with head and neck cancer remains a high-priority topic. The results of this study suggest that PDC may be associated with reductions in VTE among this patient population. However, the associated increase in nonfatal bleeding events warrants careful consideration and further highlights the need to determine an optimal duration for chemoprophylaxis among this distinct cohort.

Objective To compare the Kadish and the modified Dulguerov staging of individual participants to determine the impact of stage and other prognostic factors on disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Data Sources Systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases. Review Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) was followed for this study. Articles including patients with olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) staged with both Kadish and Dulguerov staging systems were reviewed. The raw data from eligible studies were requested to perform an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Results Pooled data from 21 studies representing 399 patients with ONB undergoing treatment with curative intent showed that increasing age, treatment with chemotherapy, and positive or unreported margin status portended worse DFS ( P < .05). Increasing stage for both Kadish and Dulguerov staging systems was prognostic for worse DFS and OS ( P < .05), with Kadish C representing a heterogeneous group with regard to outcome and corresponding Dulguerov T stage. Using the Akaike information criterion, the Dulguerov staging system had superior performance to the Kadish system for DFS (1088.72 vs 1092.54) and OS (632.71 vs 644.23). Conclusion This study represents the first IPD meta-analysis of ONB directly comparing the outcomes of Kadish and Dulguerov staging systems in patients treated with primary surgery. Both systems correlated with DFS and OS, with superior performance in the Dulguerov system. Furthermore, the Kadish C group represented a heterogeneous group with regard to outcomes after stratification by the Dulguerov system. Dulguerov T4 patients had the worst outcome, with most being approached with open resection.

Objectives/Hypothesis To determine outcomes of patients with displaced nasal bone fractures after closed nasal reduction (CNR). Study Design Retrospective patient review. Methods Review of all patients presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary‐care, level 1 trauma hospital with a nasal bone fracture over a 2‐year period, followed by telephone survey after CNR. Results Six hundred seven patients presented to the emergency department in 2015 and 2016 with a diagnosis of nasal bone fracture. Of these, 134 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent CNR without septal reduction. Those with sports‐related injuries and those with a septal fracture identified on computed tomography imaging were significantly more likely to undergo CNR. Ninety‐one patients completed the post‐CNR telephone survey. Over 90% of patients were satisfied with the procedure. However, patients with septal fractures reported worse outcomes, as 53.6% versus 24.1% (P = .0025) disagreed that CNR improved nasal breathing. Of all patients, 11 (2%) eventually underwent septorhinoplasty, with the presence of septal fracture on imaging a significant risk factor. Conclusions Nasal bone fractures are a common injury, often managed initially with CNR. Patients with septal fractures should be counseled on the high risk of posttraumatic nasal deformity and obstruction despite CNR. In addition, addressing a septal fracture found on imaging may be warranted with either closed septal reduction or early aggressive management given the poorer outcomes seen in the present study. Although these patients are more likely to have definitive treatment, many forego later intervention despite persistent symptoms, emphasizing the need for early intervention or close follow‐up. Level of Evidence 3Laryngoscope, 129:1784–1790, 2019

Objective Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center. Study Design An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo). Setting Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States. Subjects and Methods The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5‐point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center. Results The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively. Conclusion Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost‐effective option. Level of Evidence NA.