Background Recent indirect evidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during endoscopic endonasal procedures has highlighted the dearth of knowledge surrounding aerosol generation with these procedures. As we adapt to function in the era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a better understanding of how surgical techniques generate potentially infectious aerosolized particles will enhance the safety of operating room (OR) staff and learners. Objective To provide greater understanding of possible SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk during endonasal surgeries by quantifying increases in airborne particle concentrations during endoscopic sinonasal surgery. Methods Aerosol concentrations were measured during live-patient endoscopic endonasal surgeries in ORs with an optical particle sizer. Measurements were taken throughout the procedure at six time points: 1) before patient entered the OR, 2) before pre-incision timeout during OR setup, 3) during cold instrumentation with suction, 4) during microdebrider use, 5) during drill use and, 6) at the end of the case prior to extubation. Measurements were taken at three different OR position: surgeon, circulating nurse, and anesthesia provider. Results Significant increases in airborne particle concentration were measured at the surgeon position with both the microdebrider (p = 0.001) and drill (p = 0.001), but not for cold instrumentation with suction (p = 0.340). Particle concentration did not significantly increase at the anesthesia position or the circulator position with any form of instrumentation. Overall, the surgeon position had a mean increase in particle concentration of 2445 particles/ft3 (95% CI 881 to 3955; p = 0.001) during drill use and 1825 particles/ft3 (95% CI 641 to 3009; p = 0.001) during microdebrider use. Conclusion Drilling and microdebrider use during endonasal surgery in a standard operating room is associated with a significant increase in airborne particle concentrations. Fortunately, this increase in aerosol concentration is localized to the area of the operating surgeon, with no detectable increase in aerosol particles at other OR positions.

Objective Recent anecdotal reports and cadaveric simulations have described aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation, highlighting a possible risk for transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. This study aims to provide a greater understanding of particle generation and exposure risk during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. Study Design Prospective quantification of aerosol generation during office‐based nasal endoscopy procedures. Methods Using an optical particle sizer, airborne particles concentrations 0.3 to 10 microns in diameter, were measured during 30 nasal endoscopies in the clinic setting. Measurements were taken at time points throughout diagnostic and debridement endoscopies and compared to preprocedure and empty room particle concentrations. Results No significant change in airborne particle concentrations was measured during diagnostic nasal endoscopies in patients without the need for debridement. However, significant increases in mean particle concentration compared to preprocedure levels were measured during cold instrumentation at 2,462 particles/foot 3 (95% CI 837 to 4,088; P = .005) and during suction use at 2,973 particle/foot 3 (95% CI 1,419 to 4,529; P = .001). In total, 99.2% of all measured particles were ≤1 μm in diameter. Conclusion When measured with an optical particle sizer, diagnostic nasal endoscopy with a rigid endoscope is not associated with increased particle aerosolization in patient for whom sinonasal debridement is not needed. In patients needing sinonasal debridement, endonasal cold and suction instrumentation were associated with increased particle aerosolization, with a trend observed during endoscope use prior to tissue manipulation. Endonasal debridement may potentially pose a higher risk for aerosolization and SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. Appropriate personal protective equipment use and patient screening are recommended for all office‐based endonasal procedures. Level of Evidence 3 Laryngoscope , 2020

Objective: There is considerable variation in the travel required for a patient with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) to receive a diagnosis. The impact of this travel on the late diagnosis of cancer remains unexamined, even though presenting stage is the strongest predictor of mortality. Our aim is to determine whether travel time affects HNSCC stage at diagnosis independently of other risk factors, and whether this association is affected by socioeconomic status. Materials and Methods: Cases were obtained from the CHANCE database, a population-based case-control study in North Carolina (n=808). The mean age was 59.6 and 72% were male. Stage at diagnosis was categorized as early (T1-T2) or advanced (T3-T4) T stage and the presence or absence of nodal metastasis. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios for stage-at-diagnosis based on travel time, after adjustment for variables including demographics, income, insurance status, alcohol, and tobacco use.

Objectives/Hypothesis: To determine drivers of the racial disparity in stage at diagnosis and overall survival (OS) between black and white patients with HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data were examined from of a population-based HNSCC study in North Carolina. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess racial disparities in stage at diagnosis and OS with sequential adjustment sets.Results: A total of 340 black patients and 864 white patients diagnosed with HPV-negative HNSCC were included. In the unadjusted model, black patients had increased odds of advanced T stage at diagnosis (OR 2.0; 95% CI [1.5-2.5]) and worse OS (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6) compared to white patients. After adjusting for age, sex, tumor site, tobacco use, and alcohol use, the racial disparity persisted for advanced T-stage at diagnosis (OR 1.7; 95% CI [1.3-2.3]) and showed a non-significant trend for worse OS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.3). After adding SES to the adjustment set, the association between race and stage at diagnosis was lost (OR: 1.0; 95% CI [0.8-1.5]). Further, black patients had slightly favorable OS compared to white patients (HR 0.8, 95% CI [0.6-1.0]; P = .024).Conclusions: SES has an important contribution to the racial disparity in stage at diagnosis and OS for HPV-negative HNSCC. Low SES can serve as a target for interventions aimed at mitigating the racial disparities in head and neck cancer.

No abstract

Background: This study used a meta-analysis to quantify the degree to which the racial disparity in overall survival for black versus white Americans with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) persists after adjusting for human papillomavirus (HPV) status. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHLA were searched through November 2017. The PRISMA statement was followed. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and had suitable data for pooling into the meta-analysis (N = 1153). The pooled HR for overall survival in black versus white Americans with OPSCC after adjusting for HPV status was calculated to be 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.40). Conclusions: The difference in survival for black versus white Americans with OPSCC is not significant after adjusting for HPV status but still trends in the direction of a disparity. Additional studies are needed to better characterize this disparity. K E Y W O R D Shealth status disparities, human papillomavirus, meta-analysis, oropharyngeal cancer, survival

Objectives To examine applicant characteristics and behaviors associated with a successful match into otolaryngology residency. Methods Self‐reported survey data from applicants to otolaryngology residency between 2018 and 2020 were obtained from the Texas STAR database. Characteristics and predictors associated with a successful match were examined using Chi‐square tests, two‐sided t‐tests, and logistic regression models. Results A total of 315 otolaryngology residency applicants responded to the survey of whom 274 matched (87%) and 41 did not match (13%). Matched applicants had a significantly higher mean USMLE Step 1 score (P = .016) and Step 2 CK score (P = .007). There were no significant differences in AOA status (45% vs 36%; P = .207), mean number of applications submitted (70 vs 69; P = .544), and mean number of away rotations (2.1 vs 2.0; P = .687) between matched and unmatched applicants. Significant predictors of a successful match included receiving honors in 5 or more clerkships (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0‐4.0; P = .040), receiving honors in an ENT clerkship (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.0‐12.9; P = .044), and having 3 or more peer‐reviewed publications (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1‐4.5; P = .020). The majority of applicants (79.9%) matched at a program where they either did an away rotation, had a personal geographic connection, or attended medical school in the same geographic region. Conclusions Board scores, excelling on clinical rotations, and having productive research experience appear to be strong predictors of a successful match in otolaryngology. The majority of applicants report a personal or geographic connection to the program at which they match. Level of evidence 4.

Objectives/Hypothesis: To estimate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the 2021 otolaryngology match with regard to geographic clustering, interview distribution, applicant-reported costs, and matched applicant characteristics.Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Survey data from applicants to otolaryngology residency programs were obtained from the Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency database. Applicant differences between the 2021 match year and prior match years (2018, 2019, and 2020) were analyzed using two-sided t-tests, Chi-square tests, and Fisher's exact tests.Results: A total of 442 otolaryngology residency applicants responded to the survey, including 329 from the match years 2018 to 2020 and 113 from match year 2021. In 2021, 30.7% of responding applicants reported matching at a program where they had a geographic connection, compared to 40.0% in prior years (P = .139). Matched applicants in 2021 reported attending less interviews than applicants in prior years (mean 12.2 vs. 13.3, P = .040), and 26.1% of responding applicants reported matching at a program where they sent a preference signal.