Background Wide variations in revision endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) rates for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) have been reported. It is important to understand expected revision rates and factors that impact the need for revision. Methods A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed on studies that reported revision surgery data for CRSwNP patients. Results Forty‐five studies with 34,220 subjects were meta‐analyzed, with an overall revision rate of 18.6% (95% confidence interval, 14.1%‐23.6%). Studies with extractable follow‐up data reported a mean revision rate of 16.2% over a weighted mean follow‐up of 89.6 months. Factors associated with increased revision rates included allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (28.7%), aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (27.2%), asthma (22.6%), prior polypectomy (26.0%), and publication prior to 2008 (22.7%) (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusion Although polyps can recur after ESS, reported long‐term ESS revision rates are approximately 14% to 24%. Identifying risk factors for revision surgery can help manage patient expectations and determine optimal personalized treatments.

Background Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and has been reported as an early indicator of COVID-19. However, the reported prevalence of OD in the general population varies widely depending upon the metric used to assess olfaction. Methodology/Principal: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of OD in the healthy general population, review the various assessment metrics used, and compare pooled OD prevalence rates. Results A total of 175,073 subjects were identified (mean age 63.5 years, range 18 to 101) with an overall OD prevalence of 22.2% (95% CI 14.8–30.6). OD prevalence was significantly greater using objective olfactory assessments, compared to subjective measures (28.8%, CI 20.3–38.2 versus 9.5%, CI 6.1–13.5, p < 0.001). The prevalence of OD was greater using expanded identification tests (>8 items) compared to brief test with ≤8 items (30.3%, CI 16.2–46.5 versus 21.2%, CI 12.3–31.8). Prevalence was higher in studies with a mean age greater than 55 years compared to those with a mean age of 55 years or less (34.5%, CI 23.4–46.5 versus 7.5%, CI 2.6–14.5, p < 0.001). Conclusions The reported prevalence of OD in the general population depends on the testing method and population age. OD prevalence was greater in studies using objective tests, expanded identification tests, and in those with older subjects.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the implementation of rapidly changing protocols and guidelines related to the indications and perioperative precautions and protocols for tracheostomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current guidelines for tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide a framework for health systems to prepare as the science evolves over the upcoming months and years.Methods: Literature review was performed. Articles reporting clinical practice guidelines for tracheostomy in the context of COVID-19 were included.Results: A total of 13 tracheotomy guidelines were identified. Two were available via PubMed, five in society or organization websites, and six identified via health system websites or other sources. Five were from Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery specialties, six from Anesthesiology and one from Pulmonary/Critical Care. All (100%) studies recommended postponing elective OR cases in COVID-19 positive patients, while seven recommended reducing team members to only essential staff and three recommended forming a designated tracheostomy team. Recommendations with supporting references are summarized in the article. Conclusions: Tracheostomy guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by physician groups and specialty, hospital systems, and supply-chain/resource availability. This summary is provided as a point-in-time current state of the guidelines for tracheotomy management in April 2020 and is expected to change in coming weeks and months as the COVID-19 pandemic, virus testing and antibody testing evolves. K E Y W O R D S

Background Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common, affecting an estimated 13 million adults in the United States. Prior studies may underestimate OD prevalence due to use of brief smell identification tests or age-adjusted cutoff values, which concede that it is acceptable for older people to have a decreased sense of smell. Objective To determine OD prevalence in the healthy community when the goal and expectation is ideal olfactory function, rather than age-based population norms. Secondary goals were to explore factors associated with OD. Methods Subjects without otolaryngic complaints were recruited from the community surrounding the Medical University of South Carolina. Olfactory-specific information was collected, and olfactory function was assessed using the Sniffin’ Sticks test (Burghardt, Wedel, Germany) to measure threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI). OD was defined as a TDI score < 31. Bivariate analysis and linear regression were used to determine factors associated with OD. Results In total, 176 subjects were included with mean age of 52 years (range: 20–93), 111 (63%) female, and 127 (72%) white. Mean TDI score was 28.8 (6.9) and OD was present in 94 (53%) subjects. Multivariate linear regression revealed that TDI decreased an average of 1 point every 5 years. TDI was also associated with Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score, asthma, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Threshold was associated with age, heart problems, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Discrimination was associated with age and MMSE scores. Identification was associated with age, heart problems, and anxiety. Conclusions In a community-based sample, OD affects greater than 50% of subjects. Aging impacts all aspects of olfaction, while the effects of factors such as asthma, MMSE scores, gastroesophageal reflux disease, heart problems, and anxiety may only be evident in specific olfactory subtests.

Background Surgical treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) has evolved over the last decade as rhinologists have increasingly used topical steroid therapies and altered surgical techniques. It is important to understand the changes in success rates of surgery and frequency of revision endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in CRSwNP. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review the revision surgical rate of CRSwNP patients by evaluating outcomes in a cohort from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). Methods Retrospective review of CRSwNP patients operated upon at the MUSC between 2002 and 2019 by a single surgeon was performed. Assessed factors included demographics, comorbidities, CRSwNP subtype, extent of surgery, and steroid rinse compliance. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with revision surgery. Results Among 338 patients with at least 6 months of follow‐up, 24.9% had revision surgery, with a mean follow‐up of 52.6 months. In patients with any person‐time measure, the revision rate was 5.58 per 100 person‐years. Independent risk factors associated with increased odds ratio (OR) for revision surgery were: younger age (OR, 1.1); prior surgery (OR, 3.3); longer follow‐up (OR, 1.1); and surgery before 2009 (OR, 2.4) (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusion The revision surgery rate for CRSwNP was 24.9% among those with at least 6 months of follow‐up. Risk factors for higher revision rates included younger age, previous surgery, longer follow‐up, and surgery at the MUSC prior to 2009. As we enter an era of personalized medicine, it is important to consider patient‐ and surgeon‐specific factors, which impact revision surgery rates.