Anika Kaura

Objectives/Hypothesis Demonstrate that the Nasal Obstruction Balance Index (NOBI) model fulfils the unmet need of improving unilateral correlation between subjective and objective nasal obstruction outcome measures and identifying the more obstructed side. Improve correlation between unilateral objective nasal airway measurements (nasal inspiratory peak flow [NIPF] and acoustic rhinometry [AR]) and subjective Visual Analogue Scale for nasal obstruction (VAS‐NO) scores. Improve assessment of nasal airway asymmetry by evaluating unilateral measurements both before and after the application of nasal decongestant; which the patient could better understand. NOBI represents a ratio calculated by taking the difference between left and right nasal airway measurements and divided by the maximum unilateral measurement. It is based on Poiseuille's law and aims to reduce the confounding variables which challenge nasal airway measurement. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods Forty‐three controls and 34 patients with nasal obstruction underwent both unilateral and bilateral NIPF, AR and VAS‐NO measurements; these were repeated after the application of nasal decongestant. The NOBI values for unilateral NIPF, AR, and VAS‐NO were calculated both before and after decongestant. Results The correlation between unilateral NIPF and AR measurements was enhanced considerably (r = 0.57, P < .01) when NOBI was applied. The NOBI metric significantly increased the correlation between unilateral NIPF, AR, and VAS‐NO scores. Postdecongestant NOBI for NIPF and AR measurements correctly identified the more obstructed side in 82.4% and 94.1% of the deviated nasal septum (DNS) cases, respectively. Conclusion The NOBI model provides a better correlation between unilateral subjective and objective measurements and identifies the more obstructed side. Level of Evidence Prospective cohort study (level III) Laryngoscope, 2021

This review examines the latest evidence for photodynamic therapy (PDT) in treating chronic rhinosinusitis. MedLine, EMBASE and TRIP Database searches were conducted using the terms: “photodynamic” or “phototherapy” or “photo” and “sinusitis” or “rhinosinusitis,” date range January 2000 to May 2020. A total of 192 records were initially identified, after duplicates and exclusions, 9 full papers and 3 abstracts were included. All study types including in-vitro, animal and human studies were evaluated. Whilst there is in-vitro evidence for the efficacy of PDT’s bactericidal effect on drug resistant bacteria and biofilm viability, there are few clinical studies. PDT is a promising area of research, but larger, focused studies looking at the safety, delivery, efficacy, and patient selection are required before it can be considered a viable treatment for CRS.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of olfactory and taste dysfunction (OD; TD) among COVID‐19 positive health care workers (HCWs), their associated risk factors and prognosis.Methods: Between May and June 2020, a longitudinal multicenter study was conducted on symptomatic COVID‐19 PCR confirmed HCWs (COVID‐19 positive) in London and Padua.Results: Hundred and fourteen COVID‐19 positive HCWs were surveyed with a response rate of 70.6% over a median follow‐up period of 52 days. UK prevalence of OD and TD was 73.1% and 69.2%, respectively. There was a male to female ratio of 1:3 with 81.6% being white, 43.7% being nurses/health care assistants (HCAs), and 39.3% being doctors. In addition, 53.2% of them worked on COVID‐19 wards. Complete recovery was reported in 31.8% for OD and 47.1% for TD with a 52 days follow‐up. The job role of doctors and nurses negatively influenced smell (P = .04 and P = .02) and taste recovery (P = .02 and P = .01). Ethnicity (being white) showed to positively influence only taste recovery (P = .04). Sex (being female) negatively influenced OD and TD recovery only in Paduan HCWs (P = .02 and P = .011, respectively). Working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis.Conclusions: The prevalence of OD and TD was considerably higher in HCWs. The prognosis for OD and TD recovery was worse for nurses/HCAs and doctors but working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis. Sixty‐eight percent of surveyed HCWs at 52 days continued to experience OD or TD requiring additional future medical management capacity.Level of Evidence: 4.

Objectives: There is a need to develop a medical device which can accurately measure normal and abnormal nasal breathing which the patient can better understand in addition to being able to diagnose the cause for their nasal obstruction.The aim is to evaluate the accuracy of the nasal acoustic device (NAD) in diagnosing the common causes for nasal obstruction and diagnosing normal and abnormal (nasal obstruction) nasal breathing.Methods: This pilot study recruited 27 patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), and a deviated nasal septum (DNS) which represents the common causes for NO and 26 controls (with normal nasal breathing). Nasal breathing sounds were recorded by the NAD akin to two small stethoscopes placed over the left and right nasal ala. The novel outcome metrics for the NAD include inspiratory nasal acoustic score (INA) score, expiratory nasal acoustic (ENA) score and the inspiratory nasal obstruction balance index (NOBI). The change in acoustic score following decongestant is key in this diagnostic process.Results: Pre‐decongestant ENA score was used to detect the presence of nasal obstruction in patients compared to controls, with a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66‐0.96) and a specificity of 0.77 (0.54‐1.00). Post‐decongestant percentage change in INA score was used to identify the presence of AR or CRS, with a sensitivity of 0.87 (0.69‐1.00) and specificity of 0.72 (0.55‐0.89) for AR; and a sensitivity of 0.92 (0.75‐1.00) and specificity of 0.69 (0.52‐0.86) for CRS. Post‐decongestant inspiratory NOBI was used to identify DNS, with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.59‐0.95) and specificity of 0.94 (0.82‐1.00).Conclusion: We have demonstrated that the NAD can help distinguish between normal and abnormal nasal breathing and help diagnose AR, CRS, and DNS. Such a device has not been invented and could revolutionize COVID‐19 recovery telemedicine.Level of Evidence: Diagnostic accuracy study—Level III.