IMPORTANCEThe opioid epidemic has generated interest in optimizing opioid prescribing after common surgeries. Recent studies have shown a broad range of analgesic prescription patterns following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of different analgesic regimens after ESS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multi-institutional, nonblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 tertiary centers across the US and Canada and included participants who underwent ESS for acute or chronic rhinosinusitis. The study was conducted from March 2019 to March 2020, and the data were analyzed in November to December 2020.INTERVENTIONS All participants received acetaminophen, 650 mg, as the first-line analgesic. From there, patients were randomized to either oxycodone rescue (oxycodone, 5 mg, as second-line therapy) or ibuprofen rescue (ibuprofen, 600 mg, as second-line therapy, with oxycodone, 5 mg, reserved for breakthrough pain).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Baseline characteristics and disease severity were collected at enrollment. Medication logs, pain scores, and epistaxis measures were collected until postoperative day 7. The primary outcome was the postoperative visual analog scale score for pain. Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity and Pain Interference Scores were also collected. RESULTS A total of 118 patients were randomized (62 [52.5%] oxycodone rescue, 56 [47.5%] ibuprofen rescue; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [16.3] years; 44 women [44.0%]; 83 White [83.0%], 7 Black [7.0%], and 7 Asian individuals [7.0%]). After exclusions for loss to follow-up and noncompliance, 51 remained in the oxycodone rescue group and 49 in the ibuprofen rescue group. The groups had similar demographic characteristics and disease severity. Thirty-two (63%) in the oxycodone rescue group had adequate pain management with acetaminophen only, while 19 (37%) consumed at least 1 oxycodone dose. In the ibuprofen rescue group, 18 (16%) required only acetaminophen, 28 (57%) used only acetaminophen and ibuprofen, and the remaining 13 (26%) consumed 1 or more oxycodone doses. The groups had similar average acetaminophen (9.69 vs 7.96 doses; difference, 1.73; 95% CI, -1.37 to 4.83) and oxycodone (1.89 vs 0.77 doses; difference, 1.13; 95% CI, -0.11 to 2.36) use. Both groups had similar postoperative visual analog scale scores. A subanalysis that compared opioids users with nonusers showed clinically significant lower pain scores in nonusers at multiple postoperative points. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, most patients who underwent ESS could be treated postoperatively using a nonopioid regimen of either acetaminophen alone or acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Ibuprofen as a second-line therapy did not reduce overall narcotic consumption, but the overall narcotic use was low in both groups.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03783702

BackgroundPostoperative epistaxis is a known possibility following endoscopic sinonasal surgery. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to reduce intraoperative blood loss and improve the visual field. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of TXA when given at end of surgery to reduce postoperative bleeding.MethodsThis randomized, double‐blinded placebo‐controlled trial was conducted from April to November 2021. Patients scheduled to undergo endoscopic sinus or nasal surgery were randomized to receive an intravenous dose of 1 g TXA or saline intraoperatively prior to extubation. A 10‐in. visual analog scale (VAS) was used to query patients regarding postoperative bleeding each day for 1 week. The medical record was examined to determine the need for additional evaluations or interventions for epistaxis.ResultsForty patients completed the study. The mean ± SD postoperative bleeding VAS for the TXA group on the day of surgery was not significantly different from the saline group (4.82 ± 2.18 in. vs. 5.03 ± 2.14 in., p = 0.8). There were no significant differences between treatment arms on any postoperative day through day 7 (0.67 ± 1.84 in. vs. 0.87 ± 0.99 in., p = 0.7), nor in the reduction in VAS compared to the respective baseline on the day of surgery. There were no significant differences in terms of additional interventions (e.g., additional evaluation in recovery, ED, or clinic, need for packing, or return to the operating room [OR]).ConclusionAlthough TXA has previously demonstrated efficacy to reduce intraoperative bleeding during sinonasal surgery, when postoperative bleeding is already minimal at baseline, TXA does not appear to reduce it significantly further.

Background Acoustic energy and vibration therapy are emerging as helpful adjuncts among many disease states. There has been interest in how this technology can either serve as an alternative treatment or enhance delivery of medications to treat pathology within the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of the state of the science of vibration treatment used in sinonasal disease. Methods A search of Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases was performed in November 2021. Included studies evaluated acoustic energy as a means of treatment in sinonasal diseases. Data points collected included type of technology utilized, disease state treated, and outcomes. Results The initial search identified 2902 studies, of which 44 met inclusion criteria. A wide array of vibrational technology such as ultrasound, sonic aerosols, and phonophoresis, with varying frequency and amplitude were described. Twenty‐six studies evaluated the use of acoustic energy to treat sinonasal disease itself, while 18 studies evaluated the use of acoustic energy to facilitate drug delivery to the sinonasal cavity. Outcome measures among studies were highly varied. Conclusions Vibration technology used in patients with sinonasal pathology has been shown to improve pain, sinonasal symptoms, and radiologic outcome measures in small studies. Given the heterogeneous study populations and outcomes, no conclusion could be reached regarding overall effectiveness of acoustic energy as a primary treatment. Further research is required to study specific treatment indications in larger patient populations to fully understand the potential clinical benefit and to determine optimal therapeutic characteristics of sound energy.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal perioperative complication. The objective of this study was to assess the rate and risk factors for VTE in endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS). Methods This was a retrospective review of adults undergoing ESBS at a tertiary academic center. Incidence of VTE in the 30‐day postoperative period was recorded. Logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with VTE. Results A total of 1122 ESBS cases performed at Stanford University School of Medicine between 2009 and 2019 were studied. Almost all cases (96.1%) did not employ perioperative VTE chemoprophylaxis. The overall incidence of VTE was 2.3% (26/1122). Malignant pathologies had a higher rate of VTE compared with nonmalignant pathologies (4.5% vs 2.0%, odds ratio [OR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–6.66). Factors associated with an increased risk of VTE included a Caprini score greater than 5 (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28–1.83); multiple preoperative endocrinopathies such as the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) (OR 22.48, 95% CI 3.93–128.70), adrenal insufficiency (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.82–15.03), hypercortisolism (OR 4.46, 95% CI 1.47–13.56), and hypothyroidism (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.66–8.20); each 10‐hour increment of lumbar drain duration (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08–1.25); and each 10‐hour increment for duration of hospitalization (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03–1.06). Conclusions The incidence of VTE following ESBS is relatively low at 2.3%. Factors with a higher association of VTE include malignancy, preoperative endocrinopathies, higher Caprini score, prolonged lumbar drain duration, and prolonged hospitalization. Larger, multi‐institutional studies are needed to validate these findings and to better refine clinical decision‐making regarding perioperative VTE prophylaxis.

No abstract