Rhinosinusitis - Evidence and Experience

Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81(1 Supl.
1):S1-S49
Brazilian Journal of
OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
www.bjorl.org
CONSENSUS
Rhinosinusitis: evidence and experience
October 18 and 19, 2013 - São Paulo
Coordination
Although VAS has only been validated for CRS in adults,
Wilma T. Anselmo-Lima e Eulalia Sakano the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal
Polyps (EPOS) 20121 also recommends its use in ARS. There
Participants are several specific questionnaires for rhinosinusitis, but in
André Alencar, Atílio Fernandes, Edwin Tamashiro, practice, most have limited application, particularly in acute
Elizabeth Araújo, Érica Ortiz, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira Valera, cases.2-4
Fábio Pinna, Fabrizio Romano, Francini Padua, João Mello Jr.,
João Teles Jr., José E. L. Dolci, Leonardo Balsalobre,
Macoto Kosugi, Marcelo H. Sampaio, Márcio Nakanishi,
Acute rhinosinusitis
Marco César, Nilvano Andrade, Olavo Mion, Otávio Piltcher,
Reginaldo Fujita, Renato Roithmann, Richard Voegels, Definition
Roberto E. Guimarães, Roberto Meireles, Shirley Pignatari,
Victor Nakajima ARS is an inflammatory process of the nasal mucosa of sud-
den onset, lasting up to 12 weeks. It may occur one or
For the purpose of citation more times in a given period of time, but always with
Wilma Terezinha Anselmo Lima, Eulalia Sakano, Edwin Tamashiro, complete remission of signs and symptoms between
Elizabeth Araújo, Érica Ortiz, Fábio Pinna, Fabrizio Romano, episodes.
Francini Padua, João Mello Jr., João Teles Jr., José E. L. Dolci,
Leonardo Balsalobre, Macoto Kosugi, Marcelo H. Sampaio,
Márcio Nakanishi, Marco César, Nilvano Andrade, Olavo Mion,
Otávio Piltcher, Reginaldo Fujita, Renato Roithmann, Classification
Richard Voegels, Roberto E. Guimarães, Roberto Meireles,
Victor Nakajima, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira Valera, Shirley Pignatari There are several classifications for RS. One of the most
often used is the etiological classification, which is based
mainly on symptom duration:1
Introduction • Common cold or viral ARS: a condition that is usually
self-limited, in which symptoms last less than ten
Rhinosinusitis (RS) is an inflammatory process of the nasal days;
mucosa, and according to the evolution of signs and symp- • Post-viral ARS: defined when there is symptom wors-
toms, it is classified as acute (ARS; < 12 weeks) or chronic ening after five days of disease, or when symptoms
(CRS; ≥ 12 weeks). According to the severity of the persist for more than ten days;
condition, it is classified as mild, moderate, or severe. • Acute bacterial RS (ABRS): a small percentage of pa-
Disease severity is graded using a visual analog scale (VAS) tients with post-viral ARS can develop ABRS.
(Fig. 1), from 0 to 10 cm. Patients are asked to quantify, Viral ARS or common cold symptoms traditionally last
from 0-10 at the VAS, the degree of discomfort caused by less than ten days. Symptom worsening around the fifth
their symptoms, with 0 meaning no discomfort and 10 the day, or persistence beyond ten days (and less than 12
highest discomfort. Sever- ity is then classified as: mild; 0- weeks), can represent a case of post-viral RS. It is
estimated that a small percentage of post-acute viral RS
3 cm; moderate; > 3-7 cm; and severe; > 7-10 cm.1
(around 0.5% to 2% of cases) develop into a bacterial
infection.
Regardless of duration, the presence of at least three
of the signs/symptoms below may suggest ABRS:
Figure 1 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). • Nasal discharge (with unilateral predominance) and
purulent secretion in the nasopharynx;
• Local intense pain (with unilateral predominance);
• Fever > 38ºC;
• Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-
reactive protein levels;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.01.003
© 2015 Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.
S2
• “Double worsening”: acute relapse or deterioration

mation, suggesting that exposure to cigarette smoke and
after the initial stage of mild symptoms. allergic inflammation are mediated by different pathways
and possible synergistic mechanisms.47
Smoking (active and passive) has been shown to alter the
Associated factors normal bacterial flora present in the nasopharynx, resulting
in greater potential for colonization of pathogens than in
nonsmokers.48 Once smoking is discontinued, the microbial
Environmental exposure population begins to show the same pattern found in
Exposure to increasing levels of humidity, but not fungi, nonsmokers.49
has been associated with ARS. 5 Seasonal variations have
also been reported in the literature, with increased Gastroesophageal reflux
incidence of ARS during the winter months. 5-9 Exposure to Little is known about the association between ARS and gas-
air pollution,10-12 irritants used in the production of troesophageal reflux. Although studies conducted between
pharmaceu- ticals,13 in photocopiers,14 and smoke from 1997 and 2006 have observed a significant association be-
forest fires,15 have all been associated with increased tween the two diseases, 50 a recent systematic review
prevalence of ARS symptoms. found a weak association between acid reflux, nasal
symptoms, and ARS.51
Anatomical factors
Anatomical variations including Haller cells, concha Anxiety and depression
bullosa, nasal septal deviation, choanal atresia, pharyngeal States of impaired mental health, anxiety, or depres-
tonsil hypertrophy, nasal polyps, hypoplastic sinuses, and sion are often associated with increased susceptibility
odontogenic origin of infections may be associated with to ARS. 52 However, the involved mechanisms remain un-
ARS.10,16-18 clear.
Allergy Antimicrobial resistance

The role of allergy in ARS is controversial. There have been The main pathogens of ABRS include S. pneumoniae, H.
studies that assessed the association between allergic rhi- influenzae, S. pyogenes, M. catarrhalis, and S. aureus.38
nitis and ARS,19-35 while others dismissed such an associa- Despite the problems related to bacterial resistance, it
tion.35-37 is estimated that approximately 80% of cases of mild ARS
respond to amoxicillin at a dose of 70 to 90 mg/kg/day. A
Ciliary injury study by Principi and Esposito53 demonstrated that most
cases of ARS caused by H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis
Ciliary injury has been considered a characteristic of viral and approximately 15% of those caused by S. pneumoni-
and bacterial RS.38 It includes the loss of cilia and cili- ae resolve spontaneously. Lin et al. observed that 70% of
ated cells, as well as alteration of the normal mucocili- S. pneumoniae and 71.4% of H. influenzae cases isolated
ary transport. However, smoking and allergies have also from 69 children were resistant to amoxicillin and clavu-
been implicated in the alteration of the mucociliary trans- lanate.19
port,39,40 and the alteration in the mucociliary clearance
in patients with allergic rhinitis has been shown to predis-
Concomitant chronic disease
pose to ARS.22
Concomitant chronic disease (bronchitis, asthma, cardio-
vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignant tumor) in
Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) children has been associated with an increased incidence
This is a rare autosomal recessive disease, in which the cil- of ARS after influenza.54
ia are either immotile or beat with a pattern incompatible
with mucus transport in the airway. PCD is associated with
chronic upper airway symptoms such as rhinorrhea,
Clinical diagnosis
episodic facial pain, anosmia, and bronchiectasis. 41
Newborns may present rhinorrhea from the first day of
life.42,43 There are no data on the frequency of ARS
Signs and symptoms
episodes in this group of patients. According to the
European Respiratory Society Task Force on Primary Ciliary
Dyskinesia, recurring ARS is rare in patients with PCD, At primary health care levels and for epidemiological
although the episodes should be treated with appropriate purposes, ARS can be diagnosed based on symptoms
antibiotics and for a prolonged period of time.44,45 alone, without detailed otorhinolaryngological assessment
and/or without imaging studies.
In these cases, the distinction between the types of
Smoking ARS is mainly determined through clinical history and
Children living in environments with adult smokers are physical examination performed by general practitioners
more prone to episodes of ARS than those who are not and spe- cialists, whether or not otorhinolaryngologists. It
exposed to this environment.46 Active smokers with is worth mentioning that, at the time of the examination,
ongoing allergic inflammation have increased patients may not report symptom worsening if not asked
susceptibility to ARS when compared to non-smokers carefully. The report of symptoms occurring a few days
during the course of allergic inflam- before with a
recurrence of symptoms just before evaluation is frequent.
the second and third days of infection (Fig. 2), with a ten-
Health care professional should realize that, in most cases,
dency to decrease thereafter. Symptoms can, however, last
this may represent the evolution of the same disease, from
for 14 days or more.
a viral to a post-viral ARS, rather than two distinct infec-
Nasal obstruction is one of the important symptoms of
tions. Subjective evaluation of patients with ARS and their
ARS and should be assessed together with other patient
diagnosis is based on the presence of two or more of the
complaints. In spite of the scarcity with which methods of
following cardinal symptoms:1
objective evaluation of nasal obstruction (such as rhino-
• Nasal obstruction/congestion;
manometry, nasal peak inspiratory flow, and acoustic rhi-
• Anterior or posterior nasal discharge/rhinorrhea
nometry) are applied in daily practice in patients with ARS,
(most often, but not necessarily, purulent);
studies have shown a good correlation between the symp-
• Facial pain/pressure/headache;
toms reported by patients and the objective measurements
• Disorder of olfaction.
obtained by these methods. 1
In addition to the symptoms described above, odyno-
Purulent rhinorrhea is often interpreted in clinical
phagia, dysphonia, cough, and ear fullness and pressure,
practice as indicative of bacterial infection and need for
as well as systemic symptoms such as asthenia, malaise,
and fever, may also occur. The few studies on the frequen- antibiotic use.60,61 However, evidence of this association is
cy of these symptoms in ARS in the community have shown limited. Although it is a symptom that appears to increase
the chances of positive bacterial culture, in isolation it
great variability.55-57 The possibility of ABRS is greater in
the presence of three or more of the following signs and does not characterize ABRS.62 Purulent rhinorrhea with
unilateral predominance and pus in the nasal cavity have
symptoms:1
a positive predictive value of only 50% and 17%, respec-
• Nasal secretion/presence of pus in the nasal cavity
tively, for positive bacterial culture obtained by maxillary
with unilateral predominance;
sinus aspirate.63 Thus, the presence of purulent rhinorrhea
• Local pain with unilateral predominance;
does not necessarily indicate the existence of a bacterial
• Fever > 38°C;
infection and should not be used as an isolated criterion
• Deterioration/worsening of symptoms after the initial
for the prescription of an antibiotic. 62-64 Decreased
period of the disease;
olfaction is one of the most difficult symptoms to quantify
• Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-
in clinical practice and usually only is evaluated
reactive protein (CRP) levels.
subjectively. Com- plaints of hyposmia and anosmia are
ARS symptoms have a characteristically abrupt onset,
commonly associated with ARS, and can be assessed with
without a recent history of RS symptoms. In the acute ex-
good correlation by em- ploying validated objective tests
acerbation of CRS, the diagnostic criteria and treatments
with subjective scales.65,66 It is important that these tests
similar to those used for ARS should be used. 1 “Cough”, al- of olfactory function are translated and culturally and
though considered an important symptom according to socioeconomically adapted for their use in different
most international guidelines, is not one of the cardinal
populations.67
symptoms in this document. Nonetheless, in the pediatric
population, cough is considered one of the four cardinal Facial pain and pressure commonly occur in ARS. When
unilateral, facial or dental pain has been considered a pre-
symptoms, replacing olfaction disorders. 1,58 Gwaltney et
dictor of acute maxillary sinusitis.55,68 The complaint of
al.,59 when studying the symptoms of spontaneous
dental pain in the upper teeth abutting on the maxillary
rhinosinusal infections by rhinovirus in relation to the time
sinus showed a statistically significant association with the
of onset and duration, observed that the peak of typical
presence of positive bacterial culture obtained from sinus
symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, and cough
aspirates, with a predominance of S. pneumoniae and H.
occurs between
influenza.69 However, in another study, the predictive pos-
Figure 2 Rhinosinusitis symptoms of acute infection caused by rhinovirus in relation to the start time and duration. (Adapted from
Gwaltney et al. [1967]).59
itive value of unilateral facial pain for bacterial infection
C-reactive protein (CRP)
was only 41%.68
Several studies and guidelines have sought to define Low or normal levels of this protein can identify patients
the combination of symptoms that best determine the with low likelihood of bacterial infection, preventing un-
necessary antibiotic use. Treatment guided by polymerase
highest probability of bacterial infection and antibiotic
chain reaction (PCR) has been associated with a reduction
response.1 In the study by Carenfelt and Berg,68 the in antibiotic use, without affecting the outcome. Although
presence of two or more findings (purulent rhinorrhea and more studies are still required to include this routine di-
unilaterally predom- inant local pain, pus in the nasal agnostic examination for ABRS, some studies have shown
cavity, and bilateral purulent rhinorrhea) showed 95% that CRP levels are strongly associated with the presence
sensitivity and 77% specificity for the diagnosis of ABRS. of changes in computed tomography (CT), and that high
The clinical examination of a patient with ARS should CRP levels can be considered predictive of positive
initially comprise assessment of vital signs and physical bacterial culture from puncture or sinus lavage.69,71,72
examination of the head and neck, with special attention
aimed at the presence of localized or diffuse facial edema. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)
At oroscopy, posterior purulent oropharyngeal secretions 58 Inflammatory markers such as ESR and plasma viscosity
are important. Anterior rhinoscopy is a part of the physical are elevated in ARS, and may reflect disease severity
examination that should be performed in the primary as- and the need for more aggressive treatment. Their lev-
sessment of patients with rhinosinusal symptoms; although els are associated with the presence of CT alterations in
it provides limited information, it may reveal important as- ARS and values greater than 10 are considered predic-
pects of the nasal mucosa and secretions.1 tive of fluid level or opacity at CT. High values are also
Fever may be present in some patients with ARS in the predictive of positive bacterial culture by puncture or
first days of infection59 and, when higher than 38°C, it is lavage. 1,73,74
regarded as indicative of more severe disease and may in-
dicate the need for more aggressive treatment, especially CT
when associated with other severe symptoms. Fever is also It should not be used in the initial diagnosis of ARS,
significantly associated with positive bacterial culture ob- although it is indicated in special situations, such as
tained from nasal aspirate, especially S. pneumoniae and unilateral signs and symptoms, suspected complications,
H. influenzae. and treatment failure. It must be considered in severe
In patients with ARS, the presence of edema and pain disease and immunosuppressed patients. Recent studies
on palpation of the maxillofacial region may be indicative suggest that routine use of CT in patients with ARS adds
of more severe disease requiring antibiotics, despite the little information to their management.1,75,76
limited data available in literature.60
At the primary health care level, nasal endoscopy is Simple X-ray
usually not routinely available and is not considered a It has low sensitivity and specificity, being of little use in
mandatory examination for ARS diagnosis. When the diagnosis of ABRS due to the high number of false-
available, it allows the specialist to better visualize the positive and false-negative results.1
nasal anatomy and to obtain a topographic diagnosis and
material for microbiological analysis.1 Ultrasonography (USG)
At the assessment and clinical examination of patients, USG of the paranasal sinuses has low sensitivity and very
possible variations between geographical regions and limited usefulness in the diagnosis of ARS, due to the high
different populations should be considered. Among other number of false-positive and false-negative results.1
factors, climatic, social, economic, and cultural
differences, as well as opportunity of access to health
care, can change the subjective perception of the disease Treatment
and potentially generate peculiar clinical features. The
importance of this variability is unknown; more studies are There is a worldwide concern regarding the indiscriminate
needed to establish this. use of antibiotics and bacterial resistance. It is estimated
that approximately 50 million unnecessary antibiotic pre-
Complementary examinations scriptions for RS are given in the US and used to treat viral
infections. When a more selective algorithm for antibiotic
therapy is followed, the benefit is greater and only three
Nasal endoscopy patients need to be treated for one to achieve the
As previously mentioned, it is not a mandatory expected result.77 Thus, there is a worldwide trend to
examination for the diagnosis of ARS, but it may be useful treat ARS according to disease severity and duration.
for the assessment of the nasal anatomy, biopsy, and
culture. Several microbiological studies have shown a Antibiotic therapy
reasonable correlation between the findings collected by
puncture from the middle meatus, allowing for a Meta-analyses of placebo-controlled, randomized, and
microbiological confirmation of the agent and its double-blinded trials show the efficacy of antibiotics in
therapeutic response. Some authors recommend improving symptoms of patients with ABRS, especially
diagnostic confirmation through nasal endoscopy and if carefully administered. They are not recommended
culture, as many patients with clinical or radiological evi- in cases of viral RS, as they do not alter the course of
dence of ABRS do not have a positive culture.1,70
the disease;78 they are never indicated for symptomatic
pain91 and decrease the need for analgesics. 92 Evaluation
treatment and their indiscriminate use should be avoid-
ed, since that can increase the risk for the development of after ten to 14 days of treatment shows no significant
differences in symptom resolution or treatment failure
bacterial resistance.79
when comparing antibiotic therapy alone and antibiotics
Clinical studies have demonstrated that approximate-
ly 65% of patients diagnosed with ABRS show spontaneous with oral corticosteroids. 92 The few studies in the liter-
ature using oral corticosteroids in the treatment of ABRS
clinical resolution80 sometimes within the first few days; 78
showed favorable results with methylprednisolone and
therefore, the initial adjuvant treatment without antibiot-
prednisone.
ics is a viable option in cases of mild and/or post-viral si-
nusitis. The introduction of antibiotics should be
considered when there is no improvement after adjuvant Nasal lavage
therapy or if symptoms exacerbate. Antibiotics are
indicated in cases of moderate to severe ABRS; in patients Despite the frequent use of isotonic or hypertonic saline
with severe symptoms (fever > 37.8°C and in the presence solution in nasal lavage of patients with rhinitis and RS, lit-
of severe facial pain); in immunocompromised patients, tle is known about their real benefits in ARS.
regardless of disease duration; and in cases of mild or Randomized trials93 comparing nasal saline and hy-
uncomplicated ABRS that do not improve with initial pertonic solutions showed greater intolerance to hyper-
treatment with topical nasal corticosteroids.81,82 tonic solution. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled,
There are no studies that define the optimal duration randomized, double-blinded trials showed evidence of
of antibiotic treatment. In general, treatment duration limited benefit of nasal saline irrigation in adults, with no
varies from seven to ten days for most antimicrobial agents difference observed between case and control groups. A
and 14 days for clarithromycin. Amoxicillin is considered single study showed a mean difference of improved time
the antibiotic agent of first choice in primary health to symptom resolution of 0.3 days, without statistical sig-
centers, due to its effectiveness and low cost. Macrolides nificance.94
have comparable efficacy to amoxicillin and are indicated In another meta-analysis of patients younger than 18
for patients allergic to β-lactams. 79,82,83 In cases of years with ARS, there was no clear evidence that antihis-
suspected penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, severe cases, tamines, decongestants, and nasal lavage were effective in
and/or associated comorbidities, broader-spectrum children with ARS.95
antimicrobials are indicated. Despite little evidence of clinical benefit, the use of
nasal saline lavage is generally recommended in patients
Intranasal topical corticosteroids with ARS. It promotes improvement of ciliary function,
reduces mucosal edema and inflammatory mediators, and
Patients older than 12 years with post-viral RS, or with un- helps to cleanse the nasal cavity, by removing the
complicated ABRS with mild or moderate symptoms 81 with- infectious secretions, and saline lavage has no reported
out fever or intense facial pain,82 benefit from topical side effects.96
nasal corticosteroids as monotherapy. In addition to
relieving the symptoms of rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, Oral and topical decongestants
sinus pain, and facial pain/pressure, 81 topical
corticosteroids minimize the indiscriminate use of The use of oral decongestants alone or associated with an-
antibiotics, thus reducing the risk of bacterial resistance.82 tihistamines in patients with ABRS does not significantly
Studies suggest that topical nasal corticosteroids in change the clinical or radiological evolution, either in chil-
combination with appropriate antibiotic therapy results dren97 or in adults.98
in faster relief of general and specific symptoms of RS, Topical nasal decongestants (topical vasoconstrictors),
especially congestion and facial pain, 84-89 and acceler- such as 0.1% xylometazoline, are not indicated alone for
ates patient recovery, even when there is no significant the treatment of ABRS,99 but they do provide subjective
improvement in the radiological image. 87,88,90 However, and objective improvement of nasal obstruction in patients
the optimal dose and treatment duration still need to be with viral ARS. In cases of patients with ABRS as a
established.85-88 Although there are no studies comparing complication of persistent rhinitis, the use of topical nasal
the effectiveness of several types of nasal corticosteroids vasoconstrictors may relieve nasal obstruction100 and
in ARS, many of them (such as budesonide, mometasone increase inspiratory nasal flow.101 Even in this restricted
furoate, and fluticasone propionate) have shown bene- population, it is important to consider the complications
fits.90 Their use is recommended for at least 14 days to caused by interactions with other drugs, as well as the
effect improvement in symptoms. possibility of adverse effects on hypertension, glaucoma,
diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, urinary retention, and
Oral corticosteroids benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).99 Due to the rebound
effect, the use of topical nasal vasoconstrictors should be
The use of oral corticosteroids for adults with ABRS and restricted to a maximum of five days.
intense facial pain is recommended, as long as there are They should not be used by children younger than 2 years.
no contraindications to their use. 91,92 Oral corticosteroids
should be used for three to five days, in the first few days Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
of the acute event only, and always associated with anti-
biotic therapy, in order to shorten the duration of facial A systematic review with Cochrane collaboration
demonstrated that NSAIDs do not significantly reduce the
overall symptom score of patients with common cold, or
the duration of
colds. Nonetheless, their analgesic effect is beneficial, common cold.
with improvement of headache, ear pain, and muscle and
joint pain, and without evidence of increased adverse
effects in this population. Therefore, they can be used for
the symptomatic improvement in patients with common
cold.102
In spite of their analgesic effect in acute inflammato-
ry processes of the ear, oropharynx, and paranasal sinus-
es,103 NSAIDs are not recommended as the only treatment
of ABRS, and should be used with caution even when asso-
ciated with antibiotics, due to the increase in possible side
effects.104,105
Mucolytics
The association of mucolytics in the treatment of ARS is

still controversial. It is believed that they reduce nasal
secretion viscosity due to their mucoregulatory activity,
resulting in fragmentation of acid mucopolysaccharide
(AMPS) fibers and, therefore, facilitating mucociliary
transport and their elimination through the nose and
paranasal sinuses.106 When combined with antibiotics, they
may facilitate penetration into the paranasal sinus mucosa
and improvement of the inflammatory process. 107 There
have been some studies using oral bromhexine combined
with oral antibiotics and ace- tylcysteine combined with
topical nasal antibiotics.106-108 However, those studies did
not clearly state the time and severity of RS; therefore,
their results should be analyzed with caution. Studies with
oral erdosteine showed no significant benefit in
children.109
Phytotherapics
There are few placebo-controlled, randomized, and dou-

ble-blinded studies of herbal medicines in the treatment of
ARS. In spite of the benefits demonstrated by some of
them, their use in clinical practice should be approached
cautious- ly because of the scarcity of published evidence
regarding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of
these components and their mechanisms.
• Pelargonium sidoides:110 A study with Cochrane
collabora-
tion for the treatment of acute respiratory infections
concluded that it can be effective in alleviating the
symptoms of the common cold and post-viral ARS in
adults.
• Myrtle Essential Oil: which is extracted from Pinus
spp. (pine), Citrus aurantifolia (lime) and Eucalyptus
globulus. A controlled, randomized, multicenter trial
reported a statistical difference in symptom improve-
ment score of post-viral ARS (from 10.5 to 9.2) when
compared to placebo, reducing the need for antibiot-
ics (20% in patients who used the medication vs. 40%
in those who used a placebo). In Germany, it is
recommended for the treatment of ARS.111
Probiotics
A Cochrane review112 with ten studies demonstrated that

probiotics are superior to placebo in reducing the number
of patients with upper respiratory tract infection episodes,
number of episodes per participant, and antibiotic use.
Therefore, they may be indicated for the prevention of the
Immunomodulators
A systematic review113 of eight randomized controlled

trials (RCTs) in children with more than three episodes of
upper airway infections per fall/winter (six months) who
used OM- 85 BV extract demonstrated that these
children had fewer episodes of upper airway viral
infections when compared to the placebo group (38% vs.
52%; p < 0.001), and that the benefits are greater for
patients with risk factors for recurrent infections.
Acute rhinosinusitis complications

RS complications are caused by acute or chronic
infections; although they are more common in children,
they may also occur in adults and can be orbital-
palpebral, bone, and intracranial.
Epidemiology
Most RS complications originate from ethmoid sinus

infections. It is estimated that prior to the advent of
antibiotics, the rate of blindness arising from
complications was up to 20%, and is currently around
11% of cases. Mortality from meningitis of sinus origin in
the past was approximately 17%; it currently ranges
from 1% to 2.5%.1,114-116 The mortality rate from
intracranial complications is around 20% to 40%, 114,117
and from neurological deficits, 25%.117,118 The incidence
varies by geographic region. In the Netherlands, for
instance, the complication rate is estimated at 1:12,000
ARS in children and 1:36,000 ARS in adults, 119 whereas
in the United States it ranges from 2.7 to
4.3:1,000.000;120 and in France, 2.5:1,000,000/year,
excluding pediatric patients.121 It is more frequent in
males. In children, complications usually occur from the
acute processes, whereas in adults, they are more often
seen with CRS with or without polyposis.119,120,122 There
are no exact prevalence data for the several types of
complications. Orbital complications comprise from 60%
to 75%; intracranial, from 15% to 20%; and osseus, 5% to
10%.123 Childhood sinusal disease is the presumed cause
of 10% of intracranial suppuration, 10% of preseptal
cellulitis, and 90% of orbital cellulitis, subperiosteal and
intraorbital abscesses.124 Antibiotic prescription does not
appear to reduce the incidence of complications.5,119
Physiopathogenesis
Dissemination occurs by direct extension, bone erosion,

through diploic veins and hematogenously through
venous involvement.125 Certain anatomical
characteristics are important in the genesis of these
complications:1,114
• the thin boney lamina papyracea that separates
the orbital contents from ethmoid cells;
• in children, a number of larger neurovascular
forami- na and several boney sutures that remain
open in the medial orbital wall and facilitate the
dissemination of infection; and
• the valveless venous system that allows blood to
flow unimpeded into the interior of the skull. The
principal pathway is through the superior and
inferior ophthal-
mic veins, which communicate with intraorbital ves-
bital-palpebral cellulitis. It is caused by venous obstruction
sels and directly with the cavernous sinus.
created by the pressure on the ethmoid vessels, 116,118 and
can progress into palpebral abscess and rarely, to
Classification of orbital complications cutaneous fistula. Visual acuity and ocular motility are
preserved and this assessment is difficult in some
Existing classifications are based on anatomical-clinical cri- children.133 Inflammation of the eyelid and conjunctiva is
teria, but none is universally accepted. It is important to observed on CT as edema- tous tissue.134 It occurs as a
remember that the orbital septum consists of a deflection complication of viral upper respiratory tract infection,
or extension with change in direction, laterally forming the acute dacryocystitis, skin infection and, less commonly,
lateral palpebral ligament, and medially, the medial pal- RS.135-138 It has a favorable prognosis with antibiotics and
pebral ligament, behind the lacrimal sac. It functions as a often requires no imaging tests, being treated as simple
protective barrier against infections for the internal orbital acute ethmoiditis.121
area.116,118,123 The earliest classification was that of Hu-
bert, which dates from 1937. 118 In 1970, Chandler et al. 123 Orbital cellulitis
proposed a classification that is still the most cited in the
world literature, which takes into account the orbital sep-
It is characterized by edema extending into the post-septal
tum:
region. It appears most often as a complication of acute
• Group 1 – periorbital cellulitis: eyelid inflammation
with edema, without dissemination into the orbit; RS.137,138 It presents exophthalmia, chemosis, and conjunc-
• Group 2 – Orbital cellulitis: the infection crosses tival hyperemia,130 and affects the orbital adipose tissue
the without forming an abscess. Visual acuity and ocular
orbital septum and penetrates the orbital cavity; motility are usually preserved, but a slight decrease of
• Group 3 – subperiosteal abscess: post-septal the latter may occur, and some children initially may lose
abscess between the lamina papyracea and the the ability to distinguish green and/or red colors. 126,139,140
periosteum, contained by the latter; Ophthalmo- logic evaluation and emergency CT are
• Group 4 – orbital abscess: true orbital abscess, necessary, and treatment should be aggressive and
purulent secretion inside the orbit, within the immediate.
extrinsic eye musculature, near the optic nerve;
• Group 5 – thrombosis of the cavernous sinus. Subperiosteal abscess
Due to failures observed in this classification revealed
by imaging studies (CT and magnetic resonance imaging The clinical picture presents with high fever (39.5°C or
[MRI]), Mortimore and Wormald126 suggested removing the higher), chills, changes in general status, exophthalmos
cavernous sinus thrombosis group from orbital with exophoria, decreased ocular motility, severe pain,
complications and placing it into the cranial complications preserved visual acuity (although decreased in some
group. cases),141 and leukocytosis with a shift to the left. 141 The
Group 1 – preseptal infection; CT discloses the presence of purulent collection in the
Group 2 – subperiosteal post-septal infection; medial orbital wall, between the periorbital and the
Group 3 – intraconal post-septal infection. orbital bone, with an extraconal location and, thus,
In Brazil, Velasco et al.127 proposed a simpler classifica- outside the ocular mus- cles. 116 The most common
tion, with only three groups, considering preseptal cellulitis microorganisms are Streptococci in children and anaerobic
as a palpebral rather than orbital infection: bacteria in adults. Total vision loss can occur, especially in
• Orbital cellulitis; diabetic adults. Abscesses located more superiorly can
• Subperiosteal abscess; result in intracranial complications by extending into the
• Orbital abscess. frontal lobe.
Among all classifications, most authors still use that
proposed by Chandler.116,128-131 Orbital abscess
Bacteriology It is an intraconal lesion, commonly the consequence of

late diagnosis or immunosuppression. 142 The clinical
Regarding the bacteriology in orbital complications, the picture is more severe with irreducible, painful
most common microorganisms are the same that are iden- exophthalmos with severe chemosis, complete
tified in RS.128 The widespread use of the heptavalent ophthalmoplegia, and marked decrease in visual acuity.130
pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) has reduced the The CT image shows purulent collection in the soft tissues
frequency of S. pneumoniae in RS complications, with a around the eyeball. It may remain localized or extend
subsequent increase in infections by S. aureus, as well as through the orbital septum, emerging as a floating mass in
in the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) the eyelid. It is a severe condition that can lead to
associated with orbital infections.132 amaurosis. The visual impairment depends on the orbital
pressure and optic neuritis. Thromboembolism may occur
Orbital-palpebral cellulitis in the vascular supply of the nerve, choroid, and retina.
With increasing pressure, there is retinal artery oc-
clusion, which, if lasting over 90 minutes, leads to
The presence of palpebral edema, erythema, localized
irreversi- ble degeneration of the optic nerve and
pain, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, difficulty opening the
eyes, and possibly fever, can be observed in cases of or- retina.116,118
The orbital apex syndrome is a localized form of orbital
cellulitis, wherein vascular-nervous lesions occur in crani-
al nerves III, IV, and VI, and in the ophthalmic branch of
the V nerve, which pass through the superior orbital
fissure
and optic foramen.116,118 Clinically, the eyeball is fixed
cillin + clavulanate potassium with metronidazole and/or,
and pupils are dilated and nonreactive to light; ptosis, and
particularly in children, oxacillin + ceftriaxone can be used
palpebral, corneal, and conjunctival hypoesthesia are also
in the treatment. Most patients respond well to the con-
observed. When there is a concomitant lesion in the optic
servative treatment, and surgical intervention is not neces-
foramen, ophthalmoplegia, amaurosis, severe ocular pain,
sary.115,116,118 It is always recommended to discuss with the
and sensory deficits from anesthesia to neuralgia are seen
local Hospital Infection Committee which antibiotic is the
in the distribution of the ophthalmic nerve. Since the pos-
most appropriate.
terior orbital bone is thicker than the anterior bone, these
The identification of abscesses on the CT, orbital or
findings are rare and, when present, are more common in
progressive visual findings, or lack of response to
sphenoethmoiditis.
intravenous antibiotics, are all indications for surgical
exploration. In- tensive ophthalmological control is
Cavernous sinus thrombosis crucial.149
Children with small and medium-sized subperiosteal ab-
It consists in the dissemination of an infection along the scesses, without significant ocular signs, may be success-
optic canal or intravenously to the cavernous sinus. It fully treated medically. Surgical drainage is indicated for
causes blindness, abolition of the pupillary reflex to light, medium-sized to large abscesses with severe visual loss,
corneal anesthesia, and paralysis of nerves III and VI. The and in cases with inadequate response to medical
following are also observed: high fever, altered sensorium, treatment.150 Usually, a medium-sized subperiosteal
prostra- tion, severe deep retro-orbital pain, bilateral abscess that does not improve with medical therapy can be
involvement, and central nervous system signs. The drained endoscopical- ly, while a lateral or intraconal
accompanying photo- phobia and neck stiffness may be abscess may require an open procedure.151
mistaken for meningitis. The mortality rate is There are controversies regarding the surgical indica-
approximately 30%.114 tion in subperiosteal abscesses. For the initial
treatment,141 many studies have documented an
Diagnosis improvement in young children with medical therapy
alone.133,142,152 If medical treatment is chosen, it is
The diagnosis of complications should involve essential that clinical improvement occurs within 24 to
otorhinolaryn- gologic, ophthalmic, and neurological 48 hours; that there is no visual impairment; that the
evaluations, as well as neurosurgical assessment, when abscess volume is less than 0.5 to 1.0 mL; the abscess is
necessary. Imaging studies, particularly CT with contrast located medially; that there are no systemic symptoms
and MRI, play an important role. High-resolution CT is the and that the child is less than four years of age.153
technique of choice when orbital complications are Surgical drainage should be strongly considered when an
suspected. MRI better character- izes the local extent of older child has a subperiosteal abscesses with significant
disease or its dissemination beyond the nasal and paranasal ocular findings, when improvement is not observed after
cavities. A combination of CT and MRI is useful in cases of 48 hours of medical treatment, when the abscess volume
difficult diagnosis.143 It usually discloses swelling of the > 0.5 mL, the length > 17 mm, and the width > 4.5
medial rectus muscle, periorbital lat- eralization, and mm.154 In general, immediate surgical drainage is indicated
downward and lateral displacement of the eyeball. When in the following situations: the abscess is not in a medial
obliteration of the extraocular muscle detail is evident and location, or there is visual loss, clinical deterioration or an
the optic nerve appears as confluent mass, an orbital absence of clinical improvement in 24 to 48 hours.114,116,141
abscess is present. Imaging studies may also detect air Based on the diagnosis of a subperiosteal abscess, in
bubbles produced by anaerobic bacteria. The predictive which there is no purulent secretion after opening the lam-
accuracy of the clinical diagnosis is 82% and of the CT is ina papyracea, an orbital abscess should be suspected, and
91%.144-146 incisions should be performed along the periosteum to re-
Laboratory analysis usually shows leukocytosis with a lease the purulent material from the orbit.155 Some authors
left shift; an elevated CRP level is associated with more always recommend surgical treatment for subperiosteal ab-
severe outcomes and may suggest or indicate the need for scess, with drainage of the abscess and sinuses involved.141
more aggressive treatment in the early phase.71 The endoscopic approach is always safer and more effec-
tive, but associated external approaches may be necessary.
Differential diagnosis Acute sphenoid RS may cause thrombosis of the ipsilat-
eral or contralateral cavernous sinus. Early surgical sphe-
Patients with RS and proptosis may have a subperiosteal noidotomy and aggressive medical treatment are the bases
orbital hematoma; 13 cases have been reported in the lit- of the successful management of this life-threatening com-
erature.147 Orbital lymphatic malformations can lead to plication.156
proptosis, compressive optic neuropathy, vision loss, and
cellulitis. The MRI shows a well-outlined intraorbital mass Intracranial complications
with a heterogeneous signal.148
These include extradural and subdural abscesses, brain ab-
General treatment standards scesses, meningitis, cerebritis, and thrombosis of the cav-
ernous and superior sagittal sinus. 120,122,123,131,153,156 The
Treatment is medical for orbital-palpebral or periorbital most common are: subdural abscess (56%), epidural
cellulitis. It requires hospitalization, careful observation, abscess (44%), and brain abscess (19%). Multiple
and intravenous antibiotic therapy. Clindamycin or amoxi- intracranial complications were observed in 31% of
cases.117,122,157 All clinical forms begin as encephalitis, but
as necrosis and liquefaction
occur, a capsule develops, forming the abscess. There is a
progresses. It can be multilocular. Lumbar puncture is con-
high incidence of anaerobic bacteria and mixed flora. Mi-
traindicated due to the risk of brain stem decompression
croorganisms most frequently mentioned in the literature and herniation. The initial treatment during the phase of
include Streptococcus millieri and S. anginosus, Fusobac- cerebritis is based on antibiotic therapy, although empir-
terium sp. and S. aureus.114,128,158,159 S. anginosus causes ical. Once an abscess is formed, surgical drainage is indi-
more severe infections, higher rates of neurological com- cated by puncture or craniotomy159,162,163 combioned with
plications, more neurosurgical interventions, and more concomitant paranasal sinus drainage. 162 The latter, alone,
central nervous system sequelae.160 Polymicrobial does not substitute for intracranial drainage. 157 Antibiotics
cultures are obtained in 50% of patients.161 should be maintained for four to eight weeks. 128 Third-gen-
eration cephalosporins can be used in combination with
Meningitis with metronidazole, mannitol, hyperventilation, and dexa-
methasone, with or without anticonvulsants. 128
In decreasing order of frequency, the paranasal sinuses
related to the origin of meningitis, are the sphenoid, fol- Bone complications
lowed by the ethmoid, frontal, and maxillary sinus. Clin-
ical manifestations include fever, severe headache, neck
They occur with the extension of the infectious process
stiffness, irritability, and behavioral disorders. CT defines
to the bone, possibly involving the brain and nervous sys-
and delimits the disease and can identify the presence of tem. The most common associated sinus infections are
additional complications. Lumbar puncture 125 reveals in- in the frontal and maxillary sinuses. 1 In the frontal re-
creased proteins and cells, and a culture and sensitivity gion, there is a diploic spongy boney layer, with a rich
test should be performed. Lumbar puncture is contraindi- vascular network including diploic veins that course be-
cated in the presence of intracranial hypertension (ICH) or tween the external and internal bone laminae. These
abscess.125 The treatment is medical, and sinus interven- veins do not have valves and allow unimpeded passage
tion is reserved for refractory cases. The mortality rate is of blood between the spaces of the sinus mucosa and the
around 5%.116,118 skull.1 Series of patients with complications of sinusitis
demonstrated that osteomyelitis occurs in 9%146 to 32%
Extradural abscess of cases.164 A peculiar clinical form of localized frontal
osteomyelitis may be focal or circumscribed, often with
This consists of a purulent collection between the dura progression to a cutaneous fistula. The diffuse or dissem-
mater and the cranium. Occasionally, it is associated with inated frontal form is characterized by thrombophlebitis
frontal osteomyelitis. The clinical manifestations are of the diploic veins, which progresses to the frontal bone
vague, with few or no neurological signs, which, when and the cranial cavity, leading to avascular necrosis, bone
present, include persistent headache, fever, and rarely, sequestration, and expansion to subperiosteal infection.
behavioral changes. The diagnosis is usually delayed It is more common in young individuals with extensive,
because of a failure to recognize the significance of the pneumatized, and vascular diploe, increasing the risk of
clinical findings. By the time of diagnosis there is usually infection.165 A softened, floating tumor may be observed,
ICH with worsening headache, vomiting, and behavioral without signs of inflammation, called Pott’s tumor.118
changes.116,118 It corresponds to a subperiosteal abscess of the frontal
bone associated with underlying osteomyelitis. 117,166 Ra-
Subdural abscess diographically, it has three phases: 1) condensation with
bone sequestration; 2) rarefaction, when there is bone
Subdural abscess is characterized by the presence of puru- necrosis; and 3) decalcification or absence of bone tissue
lent collection between the dura mater and the pia-arach- in irregular areas, interspersed with islands of calcifica-
noid. Patients present severe headache, fever, and de- tion and areas of bone sequestration. A CT scan confirms
creased level of consciousness. CT shows a decreasing the diagnosis. Scintigraphy with technetium 99 for diag-
image, not extending beyond the midline, thus nosis and with gallium 67 for the follow-up is useful, but
differentiat- ing from the extradural abscess. Surgery is not essential. 165 Treatment consists in the administration
performed at the neurosurgeon’s discretion.116,118 of clindamycin and abscess drainage through coronal ac-
cess, with reconstruction.
Osteomyelitis of the maxillary sinus is often a compli-
Brain abscess
cation of odontogenic infection, more common in infants.
The incidence of cases of sinus origin varies greatly,
Atypical rhinosinusitis complications
ranging from 3% to 11% up to 66%. The most common
location is in the frontal lobe. Focal symptoms and
increased intracranial pressure appear late with poor The literature contains case reports with unusual compli-
general condition, coma, and cranial nerve palsy. The cations, such as lacrimal gland abscess, 167-169 orbital he-
frontal lobe is an area of clinical silence that yields matoma,147 nasal septal abscess, 170 nasal septal perfora-
inconstant symptoms. Fever, ICH, seizures, waking period tion,171 frontocutaneous fistula,172 clival osteomyelitis with
disorders, coma, motor deficit, sensory disturbances, and paralysis of the VI nerve,173 acute ischemic stroke,174 and
altered vision may occur. septicemia.175 Cases of children with orbital sequelae af-
Imaging studies show a rounded lesion with a ter cochlear implant surgery176,177 have also been
hypodense center and peripheral enhancement that observed. In one study, 14% of patients showed evidence
initially is irregular but becomes more well defined as the of RS. The
necrotic portion
most likely hypotheses were: the patient’s position during
In South Korea, a nationwide study was performed
surgery, duration of surgery, or minor trauma to the lamina
through complex cluster and multistage sampling. A
papyracea during perforation of the mastoid.177 medical team that included an otorhinolaryngologist
visited house- holds and performed interviews with
participants aged 12 years or older. The diagnosis of CRS
Chronic rhinosinusitis was defined by a positive response to symptoms of nasal
obstruction and rhinorrhea for more than three months
and an endoscopic examination with findings of polyps or
Definition and epidemiology secretion in the middle meatus. The estimated CRS
prevalence in South Korea was 6.95%.191 Hastan et al.192
CRS is an inflammatory disease of the sinonasal mucosa published part of the results of the Glob-
that persists for at least 12 weeks. In specific cases, al Allergy and Asthma Network of Excellence (GA2LEN)
exclusive sinus involvement can be observed, as in Euro- pean multicenter study related to the investigation
odontogenic sinusitis or fungal ball. of CRS epidemiology. A questionnaire was mailed to a
CRS can phenotypically be divided further into two main randomized sample of adults between 15 and 75 years in
entities: CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) and CRS with 19 centers in Europe, covering 12 countries, using as a
nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Currently, there is evidence to diagnostic criterion the epidemiological definition
suggest that these two entities have distinct physiopathogenic published in EP3OS 2007 (The European Position Paper on
mechanisms. CRS is a common disease in the population, Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps)188 The estimated
and studies about its epidemiological data are important to prevalence of CRS in Europe was 10.9% (6.9% to 27.1%), but
evaluate its distribution, analyze its risk factors, and the overall response rate was 48%, with wide variation
promote public health policies. However, such data are between centers (23.2% to 80.3%).213 Tomassen et al.193
scarce in the literature. Additionally, data comparison is reported the consistency and validity of the
hindered by the different definitions and methodologies epidemiological criterion of CRS defined by EP3OS
used in the studies. This disease has a high direct cost for 2007m188 using data from the GA2LEN study.
public health, which includes medical visits, supplementary
Pilan et al.,194 in a recent study in the city of São
and radiological exams, hospitalization, surgery, and drug
Paulo, Brazil, with complex sampling design incorporating
treatment, as well as indi- rect costs, such as decreased work
stratification and multiple selection stages to obtain a
productivity and absentee- ism.178-181 In the United States, the representative sample of the population, used the ep-
estimated expenditure on these patients is US$ 8.6 billion per idemiological definition of CRS recommended by EP3OS
year,182 of which US$ 150 million are related to antibiotic
183
2007.188 The questionnaire involving this definition was
use. Additionally, overall quality of life and disease-specific applied in 2006, through household interviews, to indi-
questionnaires show great viduals aged 12 years or older, and a prevalence of CRS of
impact of CRS on patients’ quality of life.184-187 5.51% and high response rate of 87.8% was observed.194
In 2007, the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis No statistically significant difference was found in prev-
and Nasal Polyps (EPOS)188 was published, and a CRS defini- alence by gender. In that study, there was a higher prev-
tion was introduced for epidemiological purposes, charac- alence of CRS in patients who had asthma and rhinitis.
terized by the presence of two or more of these symptoms However, there was no significant association with smok-
for more than 12 weeks, a) nasal obstruction/congestion; ing. For the purpose of comparison with the methodology
b) rhinorrhea (anterior or posterior); c) facial used in the study by Pleis et al.,189 the same question was
pain/pressure; inserted: “In the last 12 months, have you had sinusitis
d) reduction or loss of olfaction. One of the two symptoms diagnosed by a physician?” The self-reported prevalence
had to be either a) or b) above. Supplementary examina- of RS diagnosed by a physician (with no distinction be-
tions, such as nasal endoscopy or imaging studies were not tween acute and chronic) was 16.55%.
required for diagnosis.
The annual study by the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS) of the United States population by means of
household surveys observed a prevalence of self-reported Physiopathogenesis
medical diagnosis of sinusitis of 13% of the adult population
in 2010 and a response rate of 60.8%. However, there was no
distinction between ARS and CRS in this study, as the Microbiology
criteria that defined CRS in this questionnaire was an
affirmative answer to the question: “In the last 12 months, In contrast to the etiopathogenesis of ABRS, which involves
have you had sinusitis diagnosed by a physician or healthcare a continuum of changes promoted by a viral infection fol-
professional?”189 However, this prevalence is used in most lowed by bacterial superinfection, the role of microbial
published studies that refer to CRS. agents in the pathogenesis of CRS is not yet fully
In Canada, an epidemiological study of complex sam- elucidated. No microbial agent alone is capable of
pling design, with a national response rate of 82%, was creating the diversity and heterogeneity of the
performed through telephone interviews with individuals physiopathogenic processes involved in CRS; therefore, a
aged 12 years and older, with symptoms of chronic microbial theory is not always applicable to all patients.
diseases for more than six months. 190 Individuals were Great advances have been made in the last decade, with
considered as having CRS when the following question was studies that have explored new interactions between the
answered affirmatively: “Do you have sinusitis diagnosed host and the environment in the genesis of chronic
by a healthcare professional?” In that study, the inflammation, opening perspectives
prevalence of self-reported RS was 5%.190
for new therapies.
Viral participation
nasal vestibule), or does not allow the differentiation of
colonizing microbes from pathogenic microorganisms (for
Currently, there is little research regarding viral involve- instance, S. epidermidis).
ment in the physiopathogenesis of CRS. Despite the high In order to overcome such limitations of flora interpreta-
frequency of acute infections of the upper airways, it is
tion in individuals with CRS, more sensitive and specific tech-
not very clear yet whether viruses act as a source of
niques have been used for the characterization of nasal flora
chronic stimulation or trigger the initial inflammatory
in healthy individuals and those with CRS. Recent studies
process. As they have the capacity to incorporate into the
using molecular techniques have shown high prevalence of
host DNA as the episomal form, the virus may persist
bacteria, with a predominance of S. aureus, P. aeruginosa,
chronically in the respiratory mucosa. Recent studies of
and anaerobic bacteria, characteristically polymicrobial.223-
viral genomic detection have demonstrated from none 195 225
to significant rates of the main respiratory viruses, These studies have demonstrated that individuals with
especially rhinovirus196 and metapneumovirus. 197 However, CRS have the same bacterial load as their healthy peers,
there is still no evidence whether these viruses are but with lower flora diversity, indicating a possible
involved in a latent infection without cytopathic effects microbiota disorder.226 Broader studies including the
for the host, or whether they are active, producing analysis of the human microbiome are still necessary to
antigens and replicating. assess the importance of the quantity and biodiversity of
these bacteria in patients and healthy individuals,
Fungal participation considering that the genetic, geographic, and
environmental characteristics may influence the
microbiota in different health scenarios.
Among the different classifications of sinonasal chronic in-
Based on conventional microbiology and some
flammatory processes involving a fungal etiology, it is indis-
molecular studies, it was observed that S. aureus is the
putable that, in some conditions, such as fungal ball and
main bacterial agent found in Western patients with CRS,
the invasive chronic forms, the role of fungi is
both in pre- and postoperative conditions, 227 with a lower
essential.198,199 However, the participation of fungi in the
prevalence in the Chinese population; 228 it is more
forms of idiopath- ic CRS, those without apparent cause, is
frequently identified in patients with extensive sinonasal
still a subject of much controversy.
The theory of a fungal etiology for CRS200 was height- polyps than in controls or even individuals with CRSsNP.229
A peculiar characteristic of S. aureus is its capaci-
ened by the correlation of the high incidence of the detec-
ty to produce exotoxins with superantigen properties.
tion of fungi in CRS patients, associated with a high
There is evidence that staphylococcal superantigens may
number of eosinophils in tissue and secretions. Several in
play a role in the physiopathogenesis of CRS, especially
vitro studies have demonstrated that stimulation of
lymphocytes by fungal antigens could produce increased in CRSwNP, with induction of specific polyclonal IgE and
amounts of IL-5, IL- 13, and IFN-gamma201 and stimulate mast cell stimulation; 230 increases in IL-4, IL-5, eosino-
eosinophil degranula- tion.202,203 However, other phils, and eosinophil cationic protein; 231-234 and associ-
investigators failed to reproduce such findings or even ation with severe asthma. 230,235-238 However, the mere
found divergent results.204-206 presence of enterotoxin-producing S. aureus in the nasal
The attempt to prove the fungal theory through clini- cavity is not sufficient to produce a chronic inflammatory
cal trials with topical and systemic antifungals did not pro- reaction and polyp formation. 239 It is believed that the
duce encouraging results. Controlled studies have failed to primary action of superantigens is to modulate inflam-
demonstrate the efficacy of oral 207 and topical antifungals mation in the upper airways, depending on the distinct
for the treatment of CRS.208-213 reactions of each individual.240
The fact that the ubiquity of fungal elements could act Another bacterial form, which has been demonstrated
as a constant stimulator of innate immunity receptors and, in CRS, is bacterial biofilms. Despite the great variability
in turn, could lead to stimulation of specific inflammatory in the prevalence of biofilms in different studies, probably
responses cannot be ignored.214,215 In light of the present due to the different techniques used, it is estimated that
evidence, fungi appear to have universal participation in at least 25% of cases are associated with their
CRS, and play a modulatory role in some patients. 216 presence.241,242 In general, patients with CRS have
significantly higher rates of biofilm when compared to
healthy individuals. How- ever, similar to planktonic
Bacterial participation
bacteria, it is unclear what the real role of biofilms is in
the physiopathogenesis of CRS and it is not possible to
Studies involving conventional bacterial growth and identi-
determine whether the colonization of biofilms would be
fication techniques have been widely performed in
the cause or the consequence of chronic
patients with CRS. Most Brazilian217,218 and international inflammation.243
studies219-222 observed a higher prevalence of S. aureus, In addition to the possible involvement of multiple spe-
Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria in patients cies of bacteria in biofilms, simultaneous fungal and bacte-
compared to controls, or even those with ARS. However, rial colonization has also been observed. 244
the identification of bacteria by the traditional method, The presence of certain bacterial species in biofilms
through in vitro culture, has some sensitivity and can diversely influence the outcome of patients undergoing
specificity limitations. In general, the conventional method surgical treatment. S. aureus and P. aeruginosa are
only shows positivity for dominant microorganisms or those associated with worse postoperative outcome or a greater
with favorable growth on that medium, representing only
number of revision surgeries.245-249 Moreover, patients with
the collection site (middle meatus, nasal cavity, and
biofilms that include H. influenzae or S. epidermidis have
paranasal sinus) with a risk of contamination from other
better postoperative prognoses.247
regions (such as the nasopharynx and the
In terms of pathogenic mechanisms, two independent
would be useful not only to better predict patient
studies, using different detection methods for different
prognosis but also to develop new therapies, prescribed
populations, showed opposite results on polarization of
according to the CRS endotype.
the inflammatory response, whether to Th1 (neutrophils,
IFN-gamma, interferon-gamma, macrophage inflammato- Histologically, CRSsNP is characterized by neutrophil in-
ry protein-1 [MIP-1], granulocyte colony stimulator factor filtration, increased fibrosis, and collagen deposition in the
stroma. The basement membrane is slightly thickened and
[G-CSF])250 or Th2 (IL-4, IL-5, eosinophil cationic protein
there are no pseudocyst deposits. 261 CRSwNP is character-
[ECP])251 in patients with biofilm. Recent studies have
ized by extensive leukocyte infiltration (eosinophilic in 80%
shown that the presence of biofilm is associated with in-
creased positivity of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor of cases) with the overt presence of pseudocysts with albu-
expression types I and II and increased plasma cells and eo- min accumulation and edema, associated with decreased
collagen in the stroma; the basement membrane is thick-
sinophilic markers, both in CRSwNP and CRSsNP.252
ened and there are significant histological alterations in
In CRSwNP, the presence of biofilms modifies the
the epithelium.261
pattern of antigen-presenting cells in the subepithelial
layer, with a possible change in the stimulatory mode of The most recent theories suggest that there is a
adaptive responses and consequent production of specific disorder in the interaction between innate and adaptive
immunity in both cases. Adaptive immunity is
inflammatory mediators.253 Finally, the presence of
phylogenetically more recent, coordinated mainly by
bacterial biofilms in CRS is associated with increased
lymphocytes. This system depends on the individual’s
expression of toll- like receptor-4 (TLR-2) and nuclear
factor kB (NF-kB), but not TLR- 4, possibly with activation prior exposure to this antigen.1
of innate immunity in different ways than in CRS without Innate immunity is phylogenetically older and immedi-
ately recognizes (without prior exposure) that which does
biofilm.254
not belong to the body. For example, after one exposure
In addition to the bacterial forms that colonize the sur-
face of the sinonasal mucosa, viable intracellular bacteria to a single-stranded DNA virus that is not characteristically
have also been identified in the respiratory mucosa of pa- present in human beings, innate immunity is immediately
activated. This system was formerly believed to be
tients with CRS, especially S. aureus.255,256
The presence of viable intracellular bacteria could jus- extreme- ly rudimentary, but it is now known that it is
tify another form of bacterial persistence in the respira- extremely complex and dynamically interacts with
tory mucosa, especially in chronic and recurrent disease. adaptive immunity.
Although the mechanisms that lead to the internalization Thus, in simplistic terms, it has been suggested that
and intracellular survival of S. aureus are not known, curi- CRS follows irreparable damage to the epithelium and
ously the intracellular niche of microcolonization is asso- activation of innate immunity. The latter is ultimately
ciated with lower adjacent inflammatory triggering, with responsible for the activation of the individual’s adaptive
reduced recruitment of surrounding T lymphocytes and immunity.262 In this sense, the main cell that initiates this
eosinophils.257 Also, Tan et al.258 demonstrated a signifi- process is the epithelial cell.
cant correlation between the intracellular presence of S. The nasal epithelium is important, not only as a
aureus with bacterial biofilms on the mucosal surface of mechanical barrier against different pathogens and
individuals with CRS, reporting that both the intracellu- stimuli, but also as an active participant in the innate and
lar persistence and the adhesion of bacterial forms on the adaptive immune processes.263,264 In ideal conditions, the
surface can contribute to the maintenance of the chron- epithelium is able to destroy these particles without
ic inflammatory process. Another relevant fact is that the activating the adaptive system.265 Therefore, an epithelial
type of strain of S. aureus can also determine the impact lesion is essential for the chronic inflammatory process.
on the host. Thus, the capacity to form biofilms on the sur- In such an epithelial lesion, the pathogen-associated
face, internalization in specific cells, and the production molecular patterns (PAMPs) bind to pattern recognition
of certain pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines also de- receptors (PRRs) present in the cell membrane and cyto-
pend on the morphological and functional characteristics plasm of epithelial cells. These PRRs are activated by the
of the bacteria.259 presence of pathogens, antigens, and necrotic cells, among
The great diversity of sinonasal microbiota, either as other inciters. The best-known PRRs are currently the toll-
planktonic bacteria, biofilm, or intracellular forms, as well like receptor (TLR) and NOD-LR-nucleotide-binding and
as the numerous possibilities of interaction with mecha- oligomerization domain-like receptors (NLR). TLRs are the
nisms of innate and adaptive immunity of the host, most often studied in the nasal epithelium. There are over
probably acts as an important factor of tissue inflammation ten known TLRs, and each is specific for a pathogen. As an
in CRS, either as a triggering or modulating factor or even example, while TLR-2 binds to Gram-positive bacteria and
as a factor that maintains chronic sinonasal some fungi, TLR-3 predominantly binds to viruses, and
inflammation. TLR4 to Gram-negative bacteria.
Once bound to PAMPs, TLRs induce the secretion of pro-
Inflammatory mechanisms teins in nasal mucus (such as lysozymes and
lactoferrins),260 cytokines, and chemokines. 266 Cytokines
Although similar in their symptoms, CRSsNP and CRSwNP are molecules that promote the inflammatory pattern;
chemokines are responsible for the recruitment of
are different at molecular and cellular level. There is
inflammatory cells toward the injured tissue.
growing scientific evidence that the phenotypic
Some studies have reported a decreased secretion of
differentiation of CRS is insufficient, making it necessary
these defense molecules against pathogens (defensin,
to differentiate between the different types of CRS based
on the disease endotype, i.e., the cellular and molecular lysozyme, lactoferrin, S100A7)266-268 in patients with CRS,
which impairs the immune function of the epithelial
markers.260 That
barrier.
Additionally, the expression of tight junctions (TJs) is also
In fact, NF-kB is a transcription factor that has an in-
decreased in nasal polyps. 269 The TJs are molecules that
creased expression in patients with CRSwNP.278,279 This
bind epithelial cells to each other, control epithelial
factor is especially important, not only for its extensive
permeability for the influx of substances or inflammatory
pro-inflammatory effect, inducing the production of
cell per- mittivity, and prevent the entrance of external
several cytokines such as IL-1β , TNF-α, IFN-γ, eotaxin,
particles.260 The decrease in expression of these molecules (intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), and vascular
demonstrates epithelial fragility, specifically that of nasal
cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), 278,280 but also because
polyps. Both gamma-interferon (IFN-γ, typical Th-1
it can directly inhibit the action of corticosteroids in the
cytokine) and interleukin-4 (IL-4, typical Th-2 cytokine)
cell by preventing the binding of its receptor
can increase epithelial permeability by decreasing TJs.270
(glucocorticoid receptor [GR]) to the cell’s DNA.278,280 A
There have been reports of changes in the expression
prospective study281 demonstrated that overex- pression of
of TLRs; while CRSsNP shows increased expression of TLR-2
NF-kB was related to an earlier relapse CRSwNP. The
and TLR-4, nasal polyps have reduced expression of TLR-2
epithelial cells themselves direct the inflammatory re-
and TLR-9.263,271-273 These changes were especially
sponse pattern: examples are IL-33, IL-25, and thymic stro-
observed in patients with early recurrence of CRSwNP,272 mal lymphoprotein (TSLP) cytokines, which induce the po-
suggesting the importance of innate immunity in CRS larization of dendritic cells and T-cells to Th2 pattern and,
physiopathogenesis.
hence, tissue eosinophilia.263,266,282,283 The expression of
Once bound to the specific particle, the TLR activates
IL- 33 that is increased in CRS, has a direct association with
its inflammatory cascade. Essentially, this cascade occurs
the degree of tissue eosinophilia, 282 and is present to a
through its canonical pathway (via myeloid differentiation
greater degree in cases that do not respond to
primary response-88 [MyD88]) or an alternative pathway
treatment.284 IL-25 and TSLP induce Th2 lymphocyte
(via TIR domain containing adapter inducing interferon-β
[TRIF]). Both pathways activate transcription factors, expansion, regardless of the adaptive response.285,286 TSLP
molecules that have the capacity to enter the cell nucle- is particularly important for the interface between
us and bind directly to DNA, inducing or repressing gene epithelial and dendritic cells,282 activating them and
transcription of some molecules, especially cytokines, finally polarizing T cells to Th2 pattern. IL-6 is an essential
chemokines and adhesion molecules. The difference be- cytokine for the transition between this phase and the
tween the two pathways is that the alternative pathway activation of adaptive immunity266 (Fig. 3).
induces the production of IFNs, which triggers the Th-1 Several cells from the nasal mucosa produce chemokines
adaptive inflammatory response.274-276 The MyD88 path- to attract inflammatory cells and adhesion molecules that
facilitate the vascular permeability for the influx of these
way triggers the transcription factors nuclear factor κB
cells. Together, they increase the influx of inflammatory
(NF-kB),274,277 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK),
cells to the site. Examples of chemokines are RANTES (reg-
and signal transducer and activator of transcription-3
ulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted)
(STAT-3),260 which amplify the adaptive immune response and eotaxins, which especially recruit eosinophils and are
in some cases with a predominantly Th1 pattern and in increased in CRSwNP,264,278,287-289 while IL-8 recruits neu-
other Th2. trophils and is specifically increased in CRS, with or with-
out NPs.290 With respect to the adhesion molecules ICAM-1
Innate
d
immunity
Epithelial defense
TLR/No R PAMP
Lysozymes, lactoferrins
response
response
response
response
Figure 3 Figure illustrating the participation of innate immunity in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS): once the toll-like
(TLR) or nod-like (NLR) receptors bind to pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP), the production of Th1 and Th2 cytokines is
stimulated, in addition to the decrease in Treg cytokines through two pathways: myeloid differentiation primary response-88
(MyD88) and TIR domain containing adapter inducing interferon-β TRIF). Furthermore, lactoferrins and lysozymes are produced.
RSCsPN
CRSsNP
Epithelial
LESÃOE lesion
PITELIAL
TLR/NodR PAMP
IL-6 Lisozimas, lactoferrinas.

Treg S100A7, ght junc ons
Th1
TGF-beta, FoxP3,
MMP, TIMP IFN-gama,I L-12,T NF-alfa
IMUNOMODULAÇÃO
Immunomodulation,
CICATRIZAÇÃO NEUTRÓFILOS
healing Neutrophils
Figure 4 Specific response to chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP). After stimulation of innate immunity in the
presence of high concentrations of IL-6, there is a polarized adaptive response to Th1, with associated increase in Treg. That
results in neutrophil response and a modulated inflammatory process.
and VCAM-1, results are controversial in the literature,

IL-1β expression is increased in polyps, both
with some studies showing no increase in ICAM-1
eosinophilic and neutrophilic. Although it is less significant
expression.288 However, this expression was related to a in the differentiation between Th1 and Th2 patterns, this
poorer response to corticosteroids in patients with
cytokine is an important pro-inflammatory molecule and
CRSwNP.291 In cases with CRSsNP, the inflammatory pattern its expression is associated with a poorer response to
is almost exclusively neutrophilic, mediated by Th1 263 treatment with topical corticosteroids291 and a worse
with increased IFN-γ, IL-12, and TNF-α283,292 (Fig. 4).
postoperative prognosis.293
In CRSwNP, there is a predominantly mixed Th1/Th2
In spite of the difference between inflammatory pat-
inflammatory pattern287,290 in European and American terns of nasal polyps in Europeans/Americans and Chinese
populations, but with a clear Th2 predominance, signif-
individuals, all share the Treg deficiency.282,298 This is an-
icant increase in expression of IL-5, in addition to other
other pattern of T cell response, whose function is to in-
cytokines, such as IL-4 and IL-13 and GATA-3 transcription
hibit and contain the inflammatory process. The expression
factor.1,4,282,283,289,292 IL-5 has particular importance in CR- of Fox-P3, a transcription factor that is the main marker of
SwNP, as it is primarily produced by eosinophils and its main
Treg response, is reduced in CRSwNP.282,298,299 Unlike what
function is to induce tissue eosinophilia by increasing the in-
is observed in CRSsNP, in which the expression of Fox-P3
flux of these cells and reducing their apoptosis.283,287,290,293 and TGF-β (transforming growth factor β) was
Moreover, IL-5 is associated with increased risk of asthma
preserved,292 the expression of both of these molecules is
and other comorbidities,293 as well as a worse postopera-
reduced in CR- SwNP.282,292,298,299 It is currently believed
tive prognosis.293 Eosinophils induce tissue damage, edema,
that this is the main difference between the two diseases,
and intense vasodilation by producing proteins such as ECP
as while in CRSsNP the inflammatory pattern is more
(eosinophil cationic protein)283,290,292,294,295 and LTs (leu- localized and contained through the maintenance of Treg
kotrienes),296 in addition to producing collagen and thick- function, in CRSwNP the inflammatory pattern is diffuse
ening the basal membrane in tissue.297 This inflammatory and exacerbated.261,292 In addition to its extremely
pattern is notably found in patients who have acetylsalicylic important role in the con- tainment of the inflammatory
acid-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD, an association process, TGF-β is one of the main inducers of remodeling,
of CRSwNP, asthma, and acetylsalicylic acid intolerance).263 a phase during which tissue recently injured by
In contrast, in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and those inflammation is regenerated.260,261 While TGF-β is
of Chinese origin, nasal polyps are predominantly neutro- increased in CRSsNP, it is quite decreased in CR-
philic,263,292 with intense infiltration of IL-8, IFN-γ, myelop-
SwNP.260,261,283,287,289,290,300,301 TGF-β is essential for the bal-
eroxidase (MPO), and IL-1β. In the specific case of CRSwNP
ance between the expression of matrix metalloproteinases
in Chinese subjects, there is a significant involvement of
(MMPS),1,282,292 whose essential function is to degrade the
Th1/Th17 mixed response, with marked increase in the ex-
extracellular matrix of the polyp stroma (thus contributing
pression of IL-17 by the tissue.260,282,283,292,298
to edema) and of its inhibitor (tissue inhibitor of
metalloproteinases [TIMP]). MMPs are increased in nasal
samples from patients with CRSwNP and
CRSsNP,260,261,287,292,297,302,303
RSCcPN
CRSwNP
LESÃOE
Epithelial lesion
TLR/NodR PAMP PITELIAL
IL-1beta Lisozimas,
lactoferrinas.
Treg S100A7, ght junc ons
Th2
TGF-beta, FoxP3,
MMP, TIMP IL-3,I IL-5
L-4,,I L-13
PROCESSOI NFLAMATÓRIO
Inﬂammatory process
EDEMA
Eosinophils
Figura 5 Specific response to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). After stimulation of innate immunity, polarized
adaptive response to Th2 occurs and Treg response decreases. As a result, the response is primarily eosinophilic and exacerbated,
resulting in edema.
facilitating the influx of inflammatory cells. TGF-β, Fox-

P3, and TIMPs are increased in CRSsNP but decreased in
Evidence from genetic research in chronic rhinosi-
CRSwNP, which could explain the difference in the extent
nusitis
of inflammatory disease. 260,261,292,302,303 The expression of
MMP-9 is also related to the recurrence of CRSwNP; Genetic basis for chronic RS
therefore, patients with higher expression have a worse
prognosis.261,292,303 The initial idea of a genetic basis for the existence of CRS
Despite the advances, there are more endotypes yet to came from the existence of familial aggregation. A study of
be identified for a full understanding of the pathogenesis the descendants of two brothers, one with and one without
of CRS. This knowledge is essential to define the subgroups CRS, showed a higher prevalence of CRS in the first group.310
that are more likely to benefit from one therapy or Other studies have also shown familial aggregation,311-314 with
another. For example, in patients with CRSwNP con- cordance between family prevalence and disease
mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), would be more appropriate for severity,311 increased chance of positive CRS family history
use in patients with increased IL-5 and macrolides for among patients with CRS,314 and a report of monozygotic
patients without marked eosinophilia. 260 The endotyping twins with CRSwNP, even though they lived in different
study of CRS is essential for the development of new, more regions.315
effective therapies.
HLA system genes
Genetics in chronic rhinosinusitis Mutations in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes
are strongly associated with inflammatory diseases, but
Genomics analyzes the alterations in DNA sequence the association with CRS is not fully understood. 1,304 Al-
(genetic polymorphisms) in two ways: studies based on terations were identified in the frequencies of several
hypotheses and studies free from hypotheses. 1,304,305 Most HLA alleles.316-320 A study of Mexican mixed-race indi-
of the published articles addressing CRS are studies based viduals with CRSwNP associated the HLA-DRB1*04 allele
on hypotheses (or candidate gene) that investigate to the disease,319 but this was not observed in a Turkish
mechanisms or pathways already known to be altered in population with CRSwNP, except for CRSwNP with asth-
the disease. A few polymorphisms are analyzed at a time ma or AERD.318 These findings show that this allele may
and the cost of research is relatively low 304,306 The more be associated with different CRS phenotypes in different
well-known studies free from hypotheses are linkage populations.
studies and genome-wide association studies
(GWAS).304,306-309 GWAS use expensive high-density chips, CFTR gene
and can evaluate over one million polymorphisms
It is located on chromosome 7q and its mutations are the
simultaneously. One way to decrease the costs of that type
of evaluation (but not without loss of genetic information) cause of CF. It is the gene most often related to CRS. There
is to perform pools of DNA from cases and controls using is a correlation between homozygosity of the ΔF508 muta-
just one chip for each group, a strategy known as pooling- tion and the presence of polyps in CF in the Brazilian pop-
based GWAS (pGWAS).304,306-309
ulation.321 The presence of CF mutations (even without CF) is
sal membrane and extracellular matrix genes (for instance,
a risk factor for CRS,322-324 and patients with CRS without CF laminin-α2 [LAMA2] and laminin-β1 [LAMB-1]) genes of mi-
are more likely to carry mutations in the CFTR gene than con- tochondrial function (for instance, prolyl-tRNA synthetase
trols; the ΔF508 are those most frequently identified, followed
[PARS2]), and genes for the degradation of lipopolysaccha-
by M470V mutations.325
rides (for instance, acyloxyacyl hydrolase [AOAH]). 308 The
association with AOAH was confirmed in a replication study
Innate immunity genes
for CRSsNP, but not for CRSwNP.343
Candidate gene studies with TLR-2 polymorphisms did not find The second pGWAS study was a secondary analysis of the
any association between CRSwNP and TLR2 R753Q rs5743708 data according to disease severity. In this analysis, there was
polymorphism;326,327 however, there is an association with an association of the G allele of TP73 gene polymorphism
TLR2 polymorphisms rs3804099 and rs380410048. The (rs3765731) with risk of more severe CRS.309 All these new
polymorphism of the gene for the bitter taste receptor findings implicated in pGWAS studies require replication and
TAS2R38 appears to influence the ability of cells to fight functional validation of polymorphisms.
respiratory infections and may be an unknown component of
the innate immune response, acting as a sentinel for
Final considerations
infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.328 CD14 is a
component of innate immunity, whose C-159T polymorphism in
Some points should be considered for future genetic studies of
its gene was associated with CRSwNP.329 Nitric oxide (NO) is a CRS. Firstly, adequate phenotyping is important in order to
molecule whose function is the defense against bacterial prevent mixing different physiopathological mechanisms.
biofilms produced by NO synthase (NOS). Sixteen pol-
Another focus should include replication of results. Moreover,
ymorphisms in the NOS1 gene and its ligand were assessed,
gene-environment interactions should be analyzed; tobacco
and the polymorphisms rs1483757 and rs9658281 may exert a
and pollution are two environmental factors that deserve
protective effect against CRS.330 The microsatellite consideration. GWAS need to be further explored in the
polymorphism CCTTT in the NOS2A gene was associated with research of CRS, as well as other techniques, such as
CRSwNP when it presented 15 or more repetitions.331 epigenomics and the complete sequencing of genomes and
exomes. Finally, it is necessary to develop functional studies.
Other genes involving inflammation, remodeling, and metab- Only then it will be possible to in- fer that a certain genetic
olism alteration actually interferes with or causes the disease.
The T allele of the polymorphism C-590T of IL-4, an important
Th2 IL, appears to exert a protective effect against CRSwNP,
but the same allele increases the expression of IL-4, instead of Clinical diagnosis
decreasing it.332 The G allele of G-174c polymorphism of IL-6
was associated with asthma and CRSwNP.333,334 The AA Several clinical tests have been developed for the clinical diag-
genotype of polymorphism A-1510C and the CC genotype of nosis of CRS, but in most patients diagnosis is based only on
the C-1055T were associated with CRS in patients with the presence of sinonasal signs and symptoms with over 12
asthma and acetylsalicylic acid intolerance.335 IL-33, another weeks of evolution.1,188,344,345 Sinonasal endoscopy and CT are
IL associated with Th2 response, was also associated with complementary examinations and help in disease
CRSwNP, through its A allele of polymorphism rs3939286.336 classification. In both CRSwNP and CRSsNP, the main symptoms
The C-1562T polymorphism in the MMP-9 gene appears to are:
be associated with CRSwNP,337 although another study only ob-
served an association in CRSwNP with asthma and Nasal obstruction344,345
acetylsalicylic acid intolerance.338 The T allele of the
An extremely subjective symptom, it is one of the most fre-
polymorphism of the TGF-β gene C-509T was associated with
quent complaints in clinical practice, affecting approximately
CRS in acetylsalicylic acid-intolerant asthmatics and was
83.7% of patients;192 it is more important in patients with
related to lower levels of protein.339 Furthermore, there is a
sinonasal polyposis. It is caused by congestion of sinusoidal
genetic association between polymorphisms TGF-β C-509T and
IL-10 A-1082G; mutated alleles are more associated with vessels, resulting in local edema, followed by tissue fibrosis
and, ultimately, only improves with the use of
CRS.340
vasoconstrictors. Despite being a subjective symptom, several
The leukotriene C4 synthase enzyme is critical for the reg-
articles in the literature validated nasal obstruction as an
ulation of cysteinyl-leukotriene synthesis, which is increased in
CRSwNP mainly in AERD, and the C allele of rs730012 polymor- important symptom of CRS346 using acoustic rhinometry and
peak nasal inspiratory flow.
phism of its gene was more associated with CRSwNP.341,342
Rhinorrhea
Studies free of hypotheses
It can be anterior or posterior, secretions can vary from
The binding study on CRS confirms the role of the CFTR gene hyaline to mucopurulent, and is present in 63.6% of patients
in CRS. The highest binding peak was found in the connecting with CRS. It can also be associated with cacosmia, cough, and
hoarseness. It is a symptom of difficult validation or
region 7q31.1 to 7q32.1, where the CFTR gene is located.307
However, genotyping of 38 mutations of this gene did not quantification.192
reveal which was responsible for this signal.307 Probably, this
failure is due to the large number of different mutations in Olfaction alterations
this gene that are not covered by the usual tests. Hyposmia or even anosmia is common, especially in CRSwNP
The first pGWAS study used one chip for over 550,000 and is present in up to 46% of patients.192,345 It can be caused
genetic polymorphisms, and observed associations with by an obstructive process (polyps), edema, and/or mucosal
several genes not previously linked with CRS, such as ba- dege- neration, or be caused by local surgical interventions
and can result from a chronic inflammatory process with or
without the
presence of nasal polyps1,188,347 There are several studies in
to exclude the possibility of associated polyposis and
the literature that clearly and reproducibly demonstrate
expan- sive lesions. It is very important to perform the
alterations of olfaction in patients with CRS.1,66 endoscopic assessment in patients undergoing surgery. The
evidence of mucosal disease six months after surgery
Facial pain or pressure should be considered as CRS. Another factor to be taken
A symptom with variable prevalence (18% to 80%).1 It is more into account in patients with previous surgery is the
frequently associated with CRSwNP, patients who have difficul- recirculation of mucus by not including the natural ostium
t-to-control allergic rhinitis, or during the flare-up processes.1 of the maxillary sinus in the antrostomy.
The rhinogenic headache is a diagnosis of exclusion, according Fokkens et al.1 established an endoscopic score for CRS
to the International Headache Society (IHS).1 monitoring, as shown in Table 1.
The scoring is performed as follows:
Cough • Polyps (0 = absent; 1 = only in the middle meatus; 2
= originate from the middle meatus, but do not com-
In childhood, cough is a frequent symptom; it is usually non-
pletely obstruct the nasal fossa; 3 = completely ob-
-productive and may be the only manifestation of CRS. In
struct the nasal fossa);
addition to the usual symptoms, complaints such as hoarse-
• Edema / synechiae / crusts (0 = absent; 1 = mild; 2 =
ness, pharyngeal-laryngeal irritation, dysphonia, halitosis, ear
severe);
fullness, adynamia, and sleep disorders should be questio-
• Nasal discharge (nasal secretion; 0 = absent; 1 =
ned.1,188,344,345 During anamnesis, it is important, in addition clear, fluid; 2 = thick, purulent).
to the abovementioned classic symptoms, to include Nasal endoscopy is an examination of utmost
questions about systemic diseases and predisposing factors importance to assist in establishing the diagnosis,
that may favor the development of CRS. Personal habits supervising disease follow-up in the postoperative period,
such as smoking, cocaine use, exposure to toxic inhalants, as well as collecting material for supplementary tests.
type of climate in the region where the patient resides, and
environmental pollution should be investigated.
Imaging assessment
Physical examination
CT is the imaging method of choice for CRS evaluation;
Anterior rhinoscopy (with and without vasoconstrictor) is of li- how- ever, it is not the first step in the diagnosis, except in
mited value, except in cases of polyposis, when it can be visu- cases with unilateral signs and symptoms and suspected
alized by simple inspection of the nasal vestibule. complica-
Nonetheless, it is important to describe signs such as
hypertrophic inferior and middle turbinates, septal deviations,
or mucosal degeneration. It is noteworthy that there are no
pathognomonic signs of CRS.1,344
Oropharyngoscopy
Regardless of the color, the presence of retropalatal mucopu-
rulent secretion justifies the symptom of postnasal dischar-
ge.1,344,345
Complementary examinations
Nasal endoscopy
Nasal endoscopy enables the systematic visualization of

the nasal cavity (lower, middle, and upper turbinate), the
nasal septum, and the nasopharynx and drainage
pathways; it can be performed with or without topical
nasal decongestant. The presence of polyps, mucosal
degeneration, secretion, crusts, structural alterations,
scars and nasal tumors can also be observed. It can be
performed at baseline and at regular intervals (e.g., three,
six, nine, and 12 months) to aid diagnosis, to supervise
disease follow-up and postoperative period, as well as to
collect material for supplementary tests.348,349
It is important to perform a systematic assessment of
the nasal cavities, such as analysis of the nasal septum,
turbinates, and visualization of the middle meatus, of the
sphenoethmoidal recesses, and the nasopharynx. It is also
necessary to verify the presence of crusts, ulceration, sep-
tal perforation, signs of nasal bleeding, and secretions,
and
Table 1 Endoscopic score for CRS follow-up (Source: adapted from Fokkens et al.)1
CharacteristicInitial assessment Follow-up

3/6/12/24 months
Polyp –
LNC (0, 1, 2, 3)
Polyp –
RNC (0, 1, 2, 3)
Edema – LNC (0, 1, 2)
Edema – RNC (0, 1, 2)
Nasal discharge – LNC (0, 1, 2)
Nasal discharge – RNC (0, 1, 2)
Postoperative
Synechiae - LNC (0, 1, 2)
Synechiae - RNC (0, 1, 2)
Crust - LNC(0, 1, 2)
Crust -
RNC (0, 1, 2)
Total
tion. There are several staging systems described in litera- Table 2 Tomographic staging – Lund-Mackay system. (Source: adapted from Fok
ture, but the most commonly used is the Lund-Mackay
system that established the staging based on opacification
of paranasal cavities and the ostiomeatal complex 350 Paranasal sinuses Right Left
(Table 2). Maxilla (0, 1, or 2)
It is noteworthy that incidental abnormalities are ob- Anterior ethmoid (0, 1, or 2)
served in up to 50% of CTs of “normal” patients.188 There- Posterior ethmoid (0, 1, or 2)
fore, the diagnosis of CRS based on the CT alone is not ap- Sphenoid (0, 1, or 2)
propriate. When compared with CT, MRI is a better test to Frontal (0, 1, or 2) Ostiomeatal complex (0* or 2*) Total score for each side
define soft tissues, and allow for the differentiation of se-
cretions and tumors. Thus, it is a test that complements
the CT in patients with suspected neoplasia.
Other examinations Score: 0 = no abnormalities; 1 = partial opacification; 2 = total opacifica

0* = not occluded; and 2* = occluded.
Bacterioscopy/sinus secretion culture
Indicated in cases refractory to treatment and when the

collected material is not contaminated. It is performed
through puncture of the maxillary sinus through the canine
fossa and through the endoscope to perform the collection
in the middle meatus.351
Nasal cytology
More often used in the presence of an associated allergic

condition. Its use alone does not confirm the diagnosis of
CRS.
Biopsy
It is important for the study and classification of the

inflammatory state of CRS and sinonasal polyposis. It is
indicated for the differential diagnosis of autoimmune and
granulomatous diseases, and to rule out neoplasms
(especially in unilateral cases).
Mucociliary function
Mucociliary function can be evaluated by mucociliary

clearance (saccharin test or radioisotope particles), study
of ciliary beat frequency, electron microscopy, and nitric
oxide measurement.352-354 The saccharin test can give
false-positive results. Scanning transmission electron
microscopy is important for the diagnosis of primary ciliary
dyskinesia.
Nasal patency the multidisciplinary study and the social impact in the
cause/effect association of CRS.
Nasal patency can be assessed by the peak inspiratory
flow, rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, and
rhinosterometry. However, it does not define the
diagnosis of CRS.355,356
Olfaction assessment
The evaluation of olfaction can be performed with

threshold and quantitative tests. The smell
identification test of the University of Pennsylvania was
recently culturally adapted to the Brazilian population
and validated in Brazil.67
Acetylsalicylic acid sensitivity test
When AERD is suspected, patients should be advised not to

take the drug, as the challenge test that confirms the
diagnosis may carry risks for the patient. In the USA, the
most common challenge test begins with the ingestion of
30 mg of acetylsalicylic acid, increasing the dose until a
reaction occurs. Subclin- ical sensitivity to that drug is
probably between 5% and 15%.
Laboratory tests
Several laboratory tests can be performed in specific cases

as part of the differential diagnosis. The clinical history
and physical examination determine what tests are
requested, that among others include: complete blood
count with eosinophils, CRP, ESR, assessment of renal,
liver and thyroid function, markers of humoral immunity
(immunoglobulins, IgG, IgE subclasses, specific antibodies
for tetanus, hemophilus influenzae, pneumococcus,
aspergillus), response to immunization, and markers of
cellular immunity (T and B lymphocytes), human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), ANCA (antineutrophil cyto-
plasmic antibodies), and measurement of chloride in
sweat.357
Allergological assessment
It is crucial for patients with a positive history of

allergy, AERD, or even with suspected fungal infection.
Comments
The diagnostic investigation of CSR is based on the
patient’s natural history, signs and symptoms,
endoscopic examination, and CT. The latter is
considered as a major factor in the analysis of disease
progression and the decision-making of surgical
intervention.
More studies are necessary to demonstrate the
involvement of predisposing factors in the
pathogenesis of CRS, such as: environmental, genetic
factors, allergies, LPRD, and immunological and ciliary
dysfunctions. The presence of Helicobacter pylori does
not preclude screening, by the otorhinolaryngologist, of
diseases associated with CRS refractory to treatment.
Social habits are another factor that must be taken
into account. Recent studies have demonstrated midline
destructive lesions induced by cocaine with ANCA (+)
mimicking Wegener’s granulomatosis associated with
maxillary sinusitis. This finding opens up reflection on the
relevance and complexity of the subject, importance of
Associated factors and diseases of ostiomeatal complex drainage and CRS. Although
there is no causal evidence that anatomical variations
CRS has a multifactorial cause that results in persistent in- are responsible for CRS, many sinus symptoms improve
flammation. Current knowledge of its pathogenesis does with surgical correction, which that improves drainage
not identify one solitary inflammatory pathway that of secretions, and favors sinus ventilation. Therefore, in
explains the entire process, from the initial lesion to the patients with CRS, it is important to evaluate the anat-
structural changes in sinonasal tissue.358 However, there is omy of the nasal cavity.
an emerging consensus that the persistent inflammation
that defines CRS results from a dysfunction of the host-
Odontogenic infections
environment binomial, which makes apparent the
imbalance of external agent interaction, predisposition of
the sinonasal mucosa, commensal flora, potential Oroantral fistula, periodontal disease, periapical abscess,
pathogens, and exogenous stress.359 and tooth roots that project into the maxillary sinus are
This section will discuss the main diseases and factors causal factors of acute maxillary sinusitis. In recent years,
associated with CRS, sometimes overlapping, sometimes complications of dental implants were also shown to be
tangential, as conditions that trigger, exacerbate, or per- the cause of infections. Although the odontogenic causes
petuate persistent inflammation. of sinusitis are common, they are rarely mentioned in re-
cent guidelines and are neglected by many otorhinolaryn-
Predisposing factors and associated diseases gologists, dentists, and radiologists.370
The pain is often sinusal and isolated, without nasal in-
Predisposing factors and associated diseases to CRS can be volvement. It is most commonly located in the infraorbital
grouped into three broad and overlapping categories: region, unilaterally or bilaterally, and may worsen with
postural changes of the head. It may also radiate to the
forehead, to the maxillary premolar and molar regions. In
Environmental, local anatomical, and systemic
addition, patients complain of fever and thick retronasal
factors secretion. In cases of purulent nasal discharge despite the
use of antibiotics and persistence of infraorbital pain,
odontogenic sinusitis should be suspected. On physical
Environmental exposure examination, there is pain on palpation of the anterior
wall of the affected maxillary sinus or the bony
Exposure to toxins such as tobacco, ozone, sulfur dioxide, prominences adjacent to the first molars.
and particulate air pollutants (e.g., smoke from diesel In some cases, no alterations were observed in the
com- bustion), has the potential to trigger epithelial injury external dental structure and there were no signs of tooth
and exacerbate airway inflammation. 360 Exposure to air decay.371
pollution, several chemical irritants, inhalants used in
photo- copying, and smoke from forest fires 1,361 are related PCD
to increased prevalence of RS and asthma. 362,363 A
comparative study among individuals who work in an
PCD is a rare autosomal recessive disorder, in which the
environment with air conditioning and natural ventilation
cilia are immotile or have an altered pattern of movement,
showed a positive association with increased nasal and
causing failure of mucus transport in the airways. The
nasal-ocular symptoms, persistent cough, and symptoms
incidence of immotile cilia syndrome ranges from 1 in
of RS in those exposed to artificial air conditioning.364
15,000 to 1 in 30,000.
PCD is associated with bronchiectasis and chronic upper
Smoking airway symptoms such as nasal secretion, episodes of facial
pain and anosmia. In neonates, there is continuous rhin-
Children of parents who smoke are more prone to acute orrhea since the first day of life.1 The diagnosis should be
respiratory disease compared with children of suspected in children with atypical asthma, bronchiectasis,
nonsmoking parents.46 The adult population also shows a chronic productive cough, thick continuous nasal
higher prevalence of RS in smokers (53.1%) when compared discharge, and severe chronic otitis media (especially in
with nonsmokers (26.4%). Subjects with allergic rhinitis children with continuous aural drainage despite placement
exposed to tobacco have more episodes of respiratory of tympanosto- my ventilating tubes). Diagnosis is
disease when compared with control groups.1 suggested by below normal nasal nitrous oxide levels, and
a saccharin test > 30 min.372
Anatomical factors More specific tests in specialized centers include exam-
ination of cilia by electron microscopy. The most common
Anatomical abnormalities such as septal deviation, con- structural abnormalities are the absence of external dynein
cha media bullosa, deviations of the uncinate process, arms or the combination of absence of both the internal
Haller cells, hypertrophic ethmoid bulla, and prominent and external dynein arms.41
agger nasi cells are correlated with CRS. These anatom- Kartagener’s syndrome is a subgroup of PCD inherited
ical variations may play a role in the pathogenesis of as an autosomal recessive disorder. The structural
CRS and increase the risk of sinus mucosa disease. 365,366 abnormality is the absence of dynein arms. Situs inversus
However, some studies have shown that these anatomi- of organs is found in approximately 50% of cases of
cal changes are not correlated with CRS. 367-369 It is ob- dyskinesias.
served that there is no specific study in the literature Young’s syndrome is unusual, being a combination of
that correlates anatomical variations with obstruction obstructive azoospermia of the epididymis, which is
associated with infertility.
Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) CRSwNP have more severe nasal symptoms. This
combination should be a clinical clue to suggest severity in
The association of LPR with RS is controversial, requiring both diseases.399
further studies for confirmation. In children, gastroesophageal
reflux disease (GERD) has been associated with RS in many
studies. Phipps et al.373 performed a prospective study of 30
pediatric patients with chronic RS who underwent 24-hour pH
monitoring and observed that 63% of children with CRS had
GERD. Among children diagnosed and treated for LPR, 79%
showed improvement in signs and symptoms of RS.373
Although other studies also describe similar results between
LPR and CRS, routine antireflux treatment is not
recommended for CRS patients.
Allergy
Review articles suggest that atopy predisposes to

CRS.374,375 Both conditions are frequently associated and
share an increasing prevalence.376,377 A number of studies
report that atopy markers are more prevalent in
populations with CRS.35,378-380 However, the role of allergy
in CRS is questioned by other epidemiological studies,
which showed no increase in the incidence of infectious
diseases.381
Between 0.5% and 4.5% of subjects with allergic rhinitis
have NPs.382-384 Conversely, the prevalence of allergy in pa-
tients with NPs ranges from 10% to 64%. 385-387 Contrary to
studies that reported atopy as more prevalent in patients
with NPs, other authors found no such association. 384,387-389
Allergy does not appear to have a direct association with
NPs, but can be an aggravating factor.
Recently, Bachert et al.390 found an association
between levels of both total and specific IgE and
eosinophilic infiltration in NPs.
A recent study391 that compared the bacterial flora of
the nasal mucosa between allergic and nonallergic individ-
uals, did not demonstrate greater bacterial growth in those
with allergies. Nonetheless, in allergic rhinitis, there is no
doubt that the mucosal edema in the region of the sinus
ostia may compromise ventilation and sinus drainage,
causing mucus retention and increasing the risk for
infection.
Non-allergic eosinophilic rhinitis
Nonallergic eosinophilic rhinitis has similar clinical char-

acteristics to those of allergic rhinitis. Its onset occurs in
adulthood, around the age of 20-30 years, and it is often
associated with RS with polyps and 30% of patients also
have asthma. It shows normal skin test and IgE levels. The
use of acetylsalicylic acid and other NSAIDs is not
recommended.
Asthma
CRSwNP and asthma are frequently and closely related,

but their interaction is still not well understood. 392,393
Asthma occurs in 26% of patients with CRSwNP compared
with 6% of controls.394,395 Alternatively, 7% of asthmatic
patients have NPs,382 with a prevalence of 13% in non-
atopic asthma and 5% in atopic asthma. 388 There is a high
prevalence of radiological abnormalities of the paranasal
sinuses in asthmatics. 396-398 Asthmatic individuals with
Acetylsalicylic acid intolerance or acetylsalicylic ac- sinonasal complaints can
id-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD)
Acetylsalicylic acid intolerance, asthma, and NPs are

frequent associated, and then are known as Samter’s
or Widal’s Syndrome. It commonly initially presents with
only NP and asthma with acetylsalicylic acid intolerance
appearing later. The etiology is unknown, although its
evolution is well known there is a very high rate of
recurrence and frustra- tion after surgical treatment.
Thirty six to ninety six percent of patients intolerant
to acetylsalicylic acid have CRSwNP.35,383,400-404
Radiological evaluation of these patients reveals that up
to 96% have alterations in the paranasal sinuses. 405
From an epidemiological viewpoint, patients intolerant
to acetylsalicylic acid are usually non-atopic, with an
increased prevalence after for- ty years of age. Children
of patients with asthma, NPs and acetylsalicylic acid
intolerance had NPs and CRS more often than children of
the controls,406 suggesting a hereditary factor. Zhang et
al.407 found that the enterotoxin-specific IgE can be
found in most NPs of patients with acetylsalicylic acid
intolerance.
Cystic fibrosis
The finding of NPs in a child is rare (less than 0.1% of

children) and should elicit an investigation for CF, which
is present in up to 60% of children with NPs. In contrast,
NPs do not affect all patients with CF, and the presence
of NPs varies with the particular mutation of the CF
gene responsible for the disease, but, in general,
approximately 20% of CF patients have NPs. CRS is
present in 70% to 100% of the patients. The clinical
manifestations of CF are variable, and adults in their
fifth and sixth decades of life can, on rare occasions, be
newly diagnosed with CF.408,409
Adults with NPs dating from childhood should get
tested for sodium/chloride in sweat or genetic testing
or both to evaluate the presence of CF. Up to 7% of
patients with CRS are heterozygous for a CF gene, when
compared with less than 1% of normal controls. The
physiopathological implications of this finding remain
unknown. CRSwNP in CF is usually characterized as
non-eosinophilic and more neutrophilic CRS.410
Immunodeficiencies
Primary or congenital immunodeficiencies manifest with

symptoms of RS since childhood, usually associated with
infections in other organs. In acquired
immunodeficiency, especially in HIV-positive patients,
RS is quite common, being present in over 50% of
patients. Immunosuppressed patients after
immunotherapy treatment or patients with diabetes
mellitus may have CRS, and can have either indolent or
fulminant invasive fungal RS, which are usually severe
and should be promptly treated after they are
diagnosed.
Concomitant chronic diseases
A number of diseases can be associated with CRS; due to

their broad involvement with general practice, it is
impossible to exhaust the subject. Sometimes the
offer the first suggestion to attain an important clinical
the paranasal sinuses, because their identification alone
diagnosis, positively contributing to patient evolution.
does not mean the presence of an infectious condition
They are:
or inflammatory reaction to their presence. 413 However,
• Wegener’s granulomatosis: associated with vasculi-
the identification of bacteria, such as Staphylococcus
tis, it often starts in the nose and paranasal sinuses
and Pseudomonas, in higher percentages among patients
with CRS, and at advanced stages, disseminates to
with recurrent conditions (postoperative) perpetuates
other organs, especially the kidneys and lungs. The
the belief about the need to consider them as part of
diagnosis is difficult, and requires biopsy confirma-
the physiopathogenesis of CRS. In spite of those statis-
tion of vasculitis; the possibility of a positive biopsy tically significant results, it must be highlighted that, in
is increased when performed in an affected maxillary terms of percentage, the number of positive cultures in
sinus region. that study was higher both in the group with a poor
• Sjogren’s syndrome: mainly characterized by dry outcome and in those with a favorable outcome (87% vs.
eyes and mouth; it is associated with CRS and 73%); for the bacteria in question, the absolute difference
rheumatolog- ic symptoms.
was 14% (39% vs. 25%).414
• Churg-Strauss syndrome: CRSwNP, severe asthma,
Recent studies have investigated bacteria as a
and vasculitis are observed. Widespread eosinophilia
necessary element responsible for maintaining the balance
has also been reported; a complete blood count of inflammatory response, depending on their interaction
showing an increase of more than 20% in eosinophils with the host. The topical use of probiotics and bacteria in
is a very suggestive finding. an attempt to create flora and biofilms that can induce
• Systemic lupus erythematosus: it is sometimes diffi-
nasal ho- meostasis is an example.415 In the past five years,
cult to diagnose, depending on a number of criteria,
there has been no truly remarkable evidence for the use of
but it is often associated with CRS.
antimicrobials in CRS. Despite this lack of evidence, there
• Sarcoidosis: often associated with CRS, it is also dif- are still recommendations for the use of macrolides for
ficult to diagnose, showing non-caseous granuloma at long periods, for instance, in the absence of elevated
biopsy. At anterior rhinoscopy, fine slightly yellowish
serum IgE.1,416-420 Meltzer et al.,421 in a review article
granules are a suspicious finding that suggests that
concluded that there is a lack of publications that establish
other tests necessary to establish the diagnosis be
a proven effective proposal for the treatment of CRS. The
performed. authors point out that, as long as the different
Other systemic diseases are associated with CRS, and presentations of the disease are not well defined, several
patient management is easy when a diagnosis has already different treatments will follow, with limitations regarding
been established, but the challenge of finding a possible interpretation and extrapolation of results.
systemic cause of CRSor a factor for its recalcitrance is an They also stated there are signs of increased interest
obligation of the otorhinolaryngologist. in developing research protocols, but the identification
of ongoing studies of RCTs versus placebo (i.e., adequate
Comments designs to search for such responses) at the United States
The multiple causes of CRS can result in isolated sinonasal National Institute of Health (NIH-ClinicalTrial.gov) does
manifestations, but it is important to note that the nose not support that claim (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
and paranasal sinuses may reflect the first symptoms of results). Thus, more specific inclusion and exclusion cri-
systemic diseases. The identification of predisposing teria, randomization, prospective design, and control
factors and diseases associated with rhinosinusites are of groups are required for the study of antibiotic treatment
utmost importance for adequate patient management. in CRS.
Systemic antibiotics
Clinical treatment
Few studies have evaluated the use of systemic antibiotics
in patients with CRS with and without NPs. They have been
Treatment with systemic and topical antibiotics studied mainly in relation to their effects during flare-ups
of chronic conditions. Undoubtedly, the most common long-
term use (over four weeks) is due to the anti-inflammato-
The growing perception of CRS as a multifactorial
ry effect exhibited by some drugs in this class, such as
inflammatory process has been clearly expressed in the
macrolides.
latest consensus, i.e., it is not a persistent bacterial
Van Zeele et al.422 studied doxycycline in the treat-
infection.411 This fact has led to an obligatory theoretical
ment of patients with CRSwNP compared to methyl-
reassessment of the use of antimicrobials for treatment of
prednisolone (20 days) in an RCT versus placebo design.
this entity. Howev- er, and unfortunately, it is not surprising
During the 12-week follow-up period, the antimicrobi-
that, in practice, antibiotics remain a constant part of the
al showed less dramatic results than oral corticoster-
drug arsenal used in these patients’ everyday life, and is
oids, but the effects persisted longer, both with respect
persistently present in different proposals for disease
to endoscopic characteristics (size of polyps) and the
management.412 This is possibly due to the lack of measurement of inflammatory markers that were differ-
awareness of the absence of bacteria both in free form ent than those of the corticoid. These findings lead to
and/or in biofilms in the paranasal sinuses of these the hypothesis that the drugs might have a synergistic
patients. This main theoretical basis for the choice of effect when used concomitantly. In another study, al-
antibiotics also suffers from the inabil- ity to
differentiate the true role of bacteria found in
beit observational with 125 patients, the authors found no
use in CRSwNP cases in which there is persistence of
evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics, as they also
severe symptoms without improvement and without serum
deduced that typical findings, on endoscopy and CT, are
IgE ele- vation after multiple treatments (including
nonspecific and are not compelling as an indication for
surgery), there is still not enough evidence; their possible
these drugs.423 Still following the line of treatments with biological effects must be significantly considered when
antimicrobials for a short period of time (21-30 days), restricting their use.
Shlalek et al.424 studied different antimicrobials
(ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and co-tri- Topical antibiotics
moxazole) in patients with polyposis, and observed no
statistically different results. If there is consensus that the
In light of the difficulties in CRS management, treatment
bacteria may be part of the etiology, but certainly are not
with topical solutions has drawn the attention of the sci-
the main factor in CRS, studies such as that by Liu et
entific community in the last decade, hoping for a new
al.,425 become significant. Unfortunately, with a sample of improvement in therapeutic results. With respect to the
only six patients, the authors studied the effects of assessment of systemic antibiotics, the problems regarding
treatment on the microbiota of the maxillary sinus of the quality of the available literature are similar. There
patients with clinical picture and findings con- sistent with are problems not only with the appropriate study design
persistent disease in this sinus, even after surgical (RCTs versus placebo), but also with the choices of the
treatment. In addition to describing individual variations in populations studied. Among the topical options are
the flora, they observed significant changes, such as the antibiotics, which are part of the available treatments for
emergence of less susceptible bacteria. patients with chronic lower airway diseases.
In the 2008 guidelines,411 the possibility of using of In addition to the effectiveness of these drugs in their
some antibiotics, identified as having anti-inflammatory topical form, other issues must be addressed. One concern
effects, appeared to be the start of a new era for some is the possible adverse effects from an unknown degree of
patients with CRS. However, the lack of definitive studies systemic absorption. For instance, gentamicin, although
and the increased risk of inducing bacterial resistance given in low concentrations, was detected in serum after
brought on new questions. Videler et al.426 conducted an lavage during a sinonasal surgical procedure. 430 Another
RCT versus placebo study to evaluate azithromycin for 12 concern, rarely addressed but nonetheless important, is
weeks in 60 patients, with and without polyposis, with and the possible impact on the microbiota in terms of the
without asthma, as well as a percentage who had already induction of resistance. Finally, it is necessary to know
been submitted to surgery, assessing several objective and whether the drugs used topically actually reach the
subjective outcomes, none of which showed statistical paranasal sinuses. In a cadaver study only small particles
differences compared to the placebo group. The (0.67 to 0.99 microns) reached the maxillary sinuses with
comparison of the characteristics of this sample in relation large antrostomies. Larg- er particles were deposited on
to the sample from a previous study, also RCT versus the nasal valve.431
placebo, which showed significance in favor of the treated Few studies have addressed quality of life improvement
group, indicated the possibility that this type of treatment in patients with CRS treated with topical antibiotics deliv-
benefits a specific population of patients with CRS ered by a small-particle nebulizer, and some did not find
(without polyps, with normal IgE and, possibly, with less different results from those obtained with saline solution
mucosal disease).427 In another retrospective study, Videler lavage, and cautioned against the possible adverse effects
et al.428 observed improvement in some outcomes among related to the absorption of these drugs. 432 More recently,
Dutch patients with CRS with both azithromycin and a clinical trial by Videler et al.433 did not find any
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, when compared to those statistical difference between nebulized colimycin and
who did not receive any antimicrobial drug. The authors bacitracin in patients previously submitted to a surgical
noted that, considering the type of design, it would not be procedure who were resistant to other treatments.
appropriate to define the true impact of these drugs. In conclusion, there is no evidence for recommending
In the same year, Majima et al. 429 compared the ef- the use of topical antibiotics for CRS with and without NPs.
ficacy of clarithromycin for 12 weeks or associated with
clarithromycin plus carbocysteine in 425 patients, and Corticosteroids in chronic rhinosinusitis
concluded that the combination of the two drugs yields
significantly better results compared to the use of anti- In CRS, whether with or without nasal polyps, there is
microbials alone. While they had a large sample and sig- only one consensus at the moment: it is an inflammatory
nificant results, the lack of a placebo group significantly disease with different triggers. Therefore, no choice is
hindered the extrapolation of their results. more rational than the use of drugs with anti-inflam-
matory effects, whose main representatives are corti-
Comments costeroids. The potential of these drugs as modulators
The authors warn about the frequent use of antibiotics and of bacterial presence has also been investigated. This
the importance of knowing how to differentiate them group of drugs includes options for topical intranasal,
among the therapeutic options for CRS. Nonetheless, there oral systemic, and injectable use. The indications in-
is not enough information to completely eliminate their clude continuous symptomatic control, surgical prepara-
use. It is necessary to find ways to identify exactly the tion, and postoperative maintenance. The surgical pro-
patients who could benefit from antimicrobial use in cases cedure-related use will be discussed in another section
of unequivocal clinical flare-ups and to identify the of this document. The use of these medications will be
specific bacterial agent through culture and sensitivity divided between patients with and without NPs. This di-
test. Regarding the extended vision is justified because they are two distinct groups in
terms of physiopathogenesis, symptoms and therapeutic polyposis. Although
results.1
Topical corticosteroids (CRSwNP)
These medications favorably alter the cytokine profile in

the subepithelial layer, but do not effect any change in the
characteristics of the biofilm.434
Goggin et al.435 demonstrated the in vitro inhibitor po-
tential of bacterial growth in the form of biofilm when ex-
posed to topical corticosteroids. In a systematic review of
48 studies, it was observed that early surgical treatment is
a beneficial factor for topical corticosteroid effectiveness,
especially by helping with drug distribution in the sinona-
sal mucosa.436
In another systematic review, 25 studies on the use
of these drugs in patients with CRS and polyposis showed
that these drugs were effective, but the same
effectiveness was not seen in patients without polyposis.437
Similar results were reported in another meta-analysis. 438
In a recent Cochrane review, topical corticosteroids were
effective in improving symptoms and reducing polyp size
and the rate of post-surgical recurrence. The authors also
observed that patients submitted to previous sinonasal
surgery responded better to this therapy. They also
reported there was no difference regarding adverse
effects compared to the placebo group.439
The major adverse effects of topical corticosteroids, in
addition to varying degrees of local irritation, are epistaxis
and rarely septal perforation. 1 It is also worth mentioning
that in the international literature there are discussions
about the benefits of different techniques of distribution
and devices used with the drugs.436,437
Topical corticosteroids in CRSsNP
Unlike patients with polyposis, the results in the group

without polyps are not as homogeneous; there are reports
of positive effects on symptoms, but not on other
outcomes, such as endoscopic scores and radiological
aspect.440
Systemic corticosteroids in CRSwNP
A recent systematic review recommended that these drugs

be used only for a short period and for preoperative prepa-
ration.441 EPOS 2012 also discussed the beneficial effects in
relation to symptoms and polyp reduction, but since this is
a chronic disease, it is worth mentioning that the duration
of these beneficial effects was brief.1
Systemic corticosteroids in CRSsNP
The same recent systematic review suggested that there

is no evidence that either indicates or contraindicates
the use of systemic corticosteroids in this subgroup. 441
EPOS 2012 corroborates this opinion, reflecting the avail-
able literature.1
Comments
Therapy with topical and/or systemic corticosteroids is an
important part of CRS treatment. This effect is
demonstrated most convincingly in patients with
more studies are required to support this claim, they are
considered as allies in the fight against CRS in general, es-
pecially when used topically. Systemic administration is
suggested for cases of CRS with uncontrolled symptoms,
in which the goal is to decrease, even temporarily, the
impact of the disease on the patient’s life. In these
situations, it is recommended to use the lowest effective
dose for the shortest possible time, to minimize the
potentially more severe side effects.
Antileukotrienes and chronic rhinosinusitis
Nasal polyposis (NP) is a chronic inflammatory disease of

the upper respiratory tract that affects 2% to 4% of the
population and two thirds of patients with acetylsalicylic
acid-sensitive asthma. The histology of polyps is similar
to that seen in polyps of patients with asthma, and is
characterized by abundant eosinophils, mast cells and
high levels of pro-inflammatory cysteinyl leukotrienes.1
It has been suggested that one potential cause of
CRSwNP is any potential defect in the eicosanoid pathway
that is strongly associated with acetylsalicylic acid
intolerance.442 Specifically, the increased synthesis of
pro-inflammatory leukotrienes and decreased synthesis of
anti-inflammatory prostaglandins have been the
accepted mechanism, not only for CRSwNP in
acetylsalicylic-acid-sensitive polyposis, but for
acetylsalicylic-acid-tolerant individuals as well.443
Regarding leukotrienes and CRS, there is abundant
data demonstrating their role in reducing inflammation,
especially with respect to eosinophils and the eicosanoid
pathway.444 The use of montelukast showed a reduction
in eosinophilic inflammation, viability, and cytokine
production in nasal polyps after treatment with
montelukast.445
Di Capite et al.446 used immunohistochemistry, immuno-
assays, and cytoplasmic calcium ion imaging in human
mast cells from cultures acutely isolated from patients
with polyposis. They demonstrated that calcium influx
into the mast cell through the activation pathway of
calcium channel release stimulates the production of
leukotrienes C4, which, in turn, activates greater calcium
influx. The combination of low concentrations of calcium
release activated channel blockers and leukotriene
receptor antagonists was as effective as the concentration
of the two antagonists alone to inhibit mast cell
activation. This fact should be further studied in order to
assess whether there is any clinical significance in this
mast cell inhibition of antileukotrienes.446
The data regarding the pathophysiology of CRS very
clearly support the use of antileukotrienes, but when the
data from randomized, double-blinded clinical trials on
the effectiveness of leukotriene inhibitors are analyzed
they do not support theoretical studies as clearly.447
After more than 15 years of their use, the
effectiveness of antileukotrienes in allergic rhinitis and
asthma has been clearly demonstrated. Montelukast
showed good effectiveness for the treatment of seasonal
and perennial allergic rhinitis in large, double-blinded
RCTs, indicating significant improvement in nasal and
ocular symptoms between one and three days, as well as
in nocturnal symptoms, quality of life, and sleep.448
The allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA)
initiative suggests that leukotriene receptor antagonists
are effective, well tolerated and very safe; they are
rec-
ommended for use in adults and children with intermittent might benefit more are not
allergic rhinitis and in preschool children with persistent
allergic rhinitis.449 Leukotriene antagonists such as mon-
telukast, zafirlukast, and zileuton were evaluated in stud-
ies involving several patients with CRSwNP and AERD, 450,451
but the results were not definitive. Many were open un-
controlled studies that suggested a benefit of leukotrienes
regarding symptomatology, the size of the NPs, and the to-
mographic scores.452 Other results include significant score
improvement in symptoms of headache, facial pain and
pressure, ear discomfort, dental pain, purulent nasal dis-
charge, postnasal drip, nasal congestion with obstruction,
as well as olfaction.453 These authors also concluded that
leukotriene-modifier drugs, when added to standard medi-
cations, including corticosteroids, result in nasal symptom
improvement in patients with CRS with and without
polyposis.454-456 However, data from a double-blinded RCT
did not consistently support the benefit of antileukotriene
therapy in patients with CRS. 450,457 Although they are
effective in patients with AERD, that effect is no greater
than is seen in acetylsalicylic-acid-tolerant
individuals.456,458
The combination of montelukast with intranasal corti-
costeroids has been shown to be effective in CRS.
According to Fergusson et al.,459 montelukast added to
intranasal corticosteroids improves symptoms in patients
with CRS, with excellent safety profile. A recent study
evaluating the postoperative effects of montelukast and
intranasal mometasone in patients with CRSwNP showed
complementary results between the drugs. Both
treatments led to a significant reduction in SNOT-22
scores and NPs, with a marginal benefit of montelukast
alone.460 For these reasons, leukotriene action, when
analyzed from the perspective of evidence-based med-
icine, reveals limited level of efficacy (III) and low grade
of recommendation (C) for patients with CRSwNP.461
Comments
Initially used in the treatment of asthma and then allergic
rhinitis, antileukotrienes have been used for more than 15
years, and have proven efficacy, level of evidence A and
recommendation for these diseases. 449 Later, they were
used in other chronic nasal diseases, mainly CRS with or
without nasal polyps, because of the high morbidity and
the low quality of life of affected patients.
Montelukast has been the most often used antileukotriene
to date, and there are data demonstrating its action as a
leukotriene receptor antagonist. Its anti-inflammatory ac-
tions, mainly those related to eosinophils, and its cytokines
have been demonstrated by several studies. Another
important factor related to montelukast is its high safety
and tolerability, being free of adverse effects, even in
children.444 What is clearly concluded is its usefulness in
allergic patients with asthma and in those with
acetylsalicylic acid intolerance. These are the patients
with CRS that should use antileukotrienes as treatment,
whether as an adjunct therapy or not, in the postoperative
period, and as maintenance therapy.
According to Scadding et al.,462 over time, it becomes
apparent that certain patients respond better to
antileukotrienes than others. The reasons for this fact are
becoming gradually clearer,462 and genetic characteristics
are being associated with these responses. The
pharmacogenetic tests required to identify patients who
yet available. Therefore, a simple therapeutic test for intranasal ketorolac in the desensitization test was
approximately one month, with monitoring through effective, safe, and achieved the
objective and subjective measures is suggested,
especially in patients whose treatments with other
medications have shown limited response. Patients
who may present with Churg Strauss syndrome are the
exception.
Acetylsalicylic acid desensitization
Acetylsalicylic acid desensitization in cases of CRS has

been a clinical treatment option in patients with AERD.
This disease is characterized by CRS with polypoid
degeneration, asthma, and acetylsalicylic acid
intolerance. Patients have a high rate of disease
recurrence, depend on corticosteroids, and have a high
rate of recurrent nasal surgery, or require NSAID therapy
for other medical reasons, such as chronic arthritis or
coronary disease.463 Desensitization can be performed
through the nasal, inhalation, and injectable routes. The
proposed desensitization therapy was first described in
1976 and was supported by the observation of
improvement of sinonasal symptoms with the use of
acetylsalicylic acid for the treatment of other systemic
diseases.464,465
Desensitization methodology
The drugs used for desensitization are acetylsalicylic

acid and lysine acetylsalicylate. The improvement
obtained with this process is dose dependent and after
maintenance dose discontinuation, nasal symptoms
recur within a few days. Regardless of the route, there
is no pre-defined dose for the start of desensitization or
for its daily maintenance. The protocols are based on
controlled and progressive administration of small and
increasing doses of acetylsalicylic acid ingested within
two to three days; when the patient can ingest 650 mg
and exhibit no adverse reactions three hours later, they
are said to be tolerant. The procedure should always be
performed in a hospital setting, due to potential
occurrence of severe adverse reactions, which can occur
in 12.5% to 23% of cases.464,466,467 Maintenance is
performed by daily administration of doses of 100 to 300
mg.
Standard desensitization is performed with the use of
acetylsalicylic acid administered orally for three to five
days, and thereafter, the dose should be maintained dai-
ly.468 Due to gastrointestinal effects, approximately 30%
of patients discontinue treatment, but treatment
withdraw- al decrease to 9% when proton pump
inhibitors are used concomitantly. 464,468 Lysine
acetylsalicylate administered through nasal route has
been employed in more recent studies and carries a
lower risk of side effects, as shown in the study by Miller
et al.,469 that evaluated 150 patients; only three had an
adverse reaction to a dose higher than 375 mg of
acetylsalicylic acid. When using lysine acetylsalicylate
through the inhalation route, the adverse effect is usual-
ly moderate bronchospasms, reversible with beta-
agonists; when the intravenous route is used, there is no
higher incidence of adverse effects than with the other
routes, with the advantage of discontinuing the infusion
if severe adverse effects occur.470 Any of the routes
used require monitoring due to the risk of these severe
adverse effects, which may occur after ingestion of from
30 to 150 mg of acetylsalicylic acid. 464 The addition of
desensitization dose of acetylsalicylic acid more quickly. In
photericin B suspension twice daily for four weeks showed
the assessed protocols, ketorolac is used in four increasing
doses at 30-minute intervals and then oral acetylsalicylic resolution of the NPs in 39% of cases. 432,479 However, subse-
quent controlled-group studies, using topical amphotericin
acid is introduced.471,472
B (irrigation or spray) did not demonstrate significant ben-
eficial effect for patients with CRS with or without poly-
Mechanism of desensitization posis. There was no difference in inflammatory markers in
the control group with the use of antifungals, and healing
The desensitization mechanism is based on the blockade was better in the control group.212,432 A randomized dou-
of the lipoxygenase pathway. A decrease in leukotriene ble-blinded study highlighted the higher rate of adverse ef-
B4 and thromboxane B4 has been demonstrated in a cul-
fects and the lack of benefit with antifungal treatment. 482
tured cell model after desensitization, as has a reduc-
Another double-blinded, randomized, multicenter study
tion in bronchial responsiveness to leukotriene B4 after
also showed no difference in symptom improvement after
desensitization has started.473 Eosinophils activation has treatment with amphotericin B for three months when
also been described following intranasal desensitization
compared to placebo.211
with lysine acetylsalicylic acid, which is maintained both
Recently, three meta-analyses agreed that, although
in the initial and late phases. Cysteinyl leukotriene was
the use of topical antifungal improved the radiological
also increased in the initial phase, but it did not remain
appearance, symptoms did not improve significantly,
so in the late phase. 474 Rizk suggests the possibility of
and a high rate of side effects was observed.213,432,483-486
the inhibition of an intracellular biochemical pathway in-
Some studies, which used increasing frequency and
volving anti-inflammatory interleukins IL-4 and IL-13.464 amounts of topical amphotericin B (four times daily for
In a recent study, it was postulated that acetylsalicylic eight weeks) did not achieve additional effects when
acid ingestion reduces the activation of tyrosine kinase, compared to the exclusive use of nasal saline solution in
which inhibits the phosphorylation of STAT6, reducing the
the treatment of CRS.208,210 The use of a systemic
production of IL-4, with consequent decrease in the pro-
antifungal, such as oral terbinafine, showed no
duction of cysteinyl leukotriene (Cys-LT) and the expres-
improvement even in cases of CRS with the presence of
sion of CysLT receptor, resulting in inflammatory tissue
fungus in the investigation and a positive culture.207
reduction.475 The authors have found significant symptom
Studies have also shown bias due to a lack of standardi-
improvement when desensitization was continued for a
zation regarding the type of administration, drug dose, and
period of one to six years, with significant decreases in
length of treatment, which ranged from four to 80
the use of oral corticosteroids for asthma, the dose of
weeks.432 Moreover, the type of storage used for
nasal corticosteroids, the number of infections, the need
to undergo nasal surgery per year, the number of hos- amphotericin B was questioned, as this drug loses its
pitalizations and improvement in olfaction in these pa- stability when exposed to light.432 Thus, Shin et al.201
tients.463 conducted a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-
The effectiveness of desensitization was also demon- controlled RCT using amphotericin B for 12 months, and
strated in the assessment of polyp recurrence rate. In the found no significant benefits in 33 pa-
group of patients undergoing desensitization, the recur- tients with CRSwNP.
rence rates at one and six years were 6.9% and 65%, Currently, the use of antifungal therapies in CRS is very
whereas in the group without desensitization it was 51.3% limited.207,212,213,432,477,478,483-487 Sacks et al.485 performed
and 93.5% respectively. There was a dramatic difference in a placebo-controlled RCT to evaluate the treatment of CRS
cost due to the low cost of acetylsalicylic acid and with topical and/or systemic antifungal, and showed that
impressive reduction of hospitalizations and the side effects outweigh the benefits of treatment with
surgeries.463,476 antifungal agents. However, other recent studies have
In conclusion, desensitization is a treatment option for found, through PCR analysis of sinonasal cavity secretion, a
cases with increased morbidity, and can result in large volume of unusual types of fungi (A. alternata, C.
significant improvement for most sinonasal symptoms cladospori- oidie, C. herbarum, P. brevicompactum, P.
compared to its use for asthma; the use of acetylsalicylic crustosum, and P. chrysogenum) only in patients with
acid lysine and intranasal ketorolac may contribute to the CRS.483,488 The authors reported that there are subgroups
reduction of adverse effects of desensitization. However, of patients with high concentrations of these fungi and
further studies should be performed to standardize the others without fungi.488 Fur- thermore, they report that in
methodology and the acetylsalicylic acid maintenance dose vitro studies did not test for the entire available antifungal
to be used. spectrum and the tests were not performed for these
unusual species. Therefore, more than one antifungal may
Antifungals be needed in order to eradicate the fungi found in the
sinonasal mucosa.483,486 The authors also discussed the
Although several studies have demonstrated the possibility of antifungal treatment failure in CRS due to
coexistence of fungi in the nose, both in healthy incomplete eradication of the fungi in the nasal
individuals and in those with CRS, there are still some who cavity.483,488
recommend the use of topical antifungals for the Khalil et al.484 evaluated antifungal treatment in recur-
treatment of this disease.477 The use of topical nasal rent allergic fungal CRS after endoscopic sinusectomy using
amphotericin B was associated with lower NP recurrence an oral antifungal agent (itraconazole for three months)
and improvement in symptoms and computed tomography and/or antifungal nasal spray (500 mL fluconazole in saline
findings, especially when administered together with lysine solution) and the same topical antifungal agent through
acetylsalicylate, according to studies without a control nasal irrigation. Their results showed that the recurrence
group.432,478-481 Nasal irrigation with am-
rate was similar between patients who received placebo
and oral itraconazole (67%). The group that had the
fewest
recurrences was the one that used fluconazole spray (10%), are widely used by surgeons preoperatively, aiming to de-
suggesting that when allergic fungal RS (AFRS) is
suspected, it would be appropriate to obtain a culture for
fungi, even with a negative result for fungi in the
anatomopathologi- cal assessment. Moreover, they
comment that some authors recommend the use of topical
antifungals in combination with topical nasal
corticosteroids in AFRS.489,490 However, other studies
contradict the use of topical antifungals, reporting that
their use may even worsen symptoms and cause
deleterious side effects, including the nephrotoxicity and
hepatotoxicity seen with systemic antifungals. Some au-
thors have observed good results with itraconazole in re-
fractory AFRS.491,492 Rains and Mineck493 defend the use of
a combination of itraconazole and oral and topical steroids
with endoscopic surgery for the control of AFRS,
considering that, in refractory cases, there may be
minimal fungal in- vasion in the sinonasal mucosa. The
authors concluded that the topical antifungal fluconazole
(spray or irrigation) can significantly reduce CRSwNP
recurrence after endoscopic sinusectomy. In their opinion,
there is no benefit in adding systemic treatment with
itraconazole,493 because the systemic antifungal agent
does not reach the target since the fungus lies on the
mucosal surface without penetrating it, and therefore is
not reached by blood; i.e., the fungus acts by triggering an
allergic and noninfectious reaction. 493 For some authors,
the conventional treatment with topical corticosteroids and
antibiotics in patients during the postoperative period of
AFRS shows reasonable benefits in preventing polyp
recurrence.484,493 The results correlated well with the
findings of a study by Jen et al.,494 who observed that 12 of
16 (75%) patients with allergic fungal RS (AFRS) improved
after treatment with fluconazole nasal spray. Moreover,
Weschta et al.482 performed a randomized, double-blinded,
placebo-controlled trial with topical antifungal amphotericin
B in 60 patients with CRS, with ineffective results.
Due to the controversial results of these studies, it is be-
lieved that there are different genotypes and, according to
environmental and behavioral influences, different CRS
phenotypes are generated. Therefore, fungi ceased to be
the main agent in the physiopathogenesis of CRS, and exert
limited influence in the AFRS subgroup. Both the
treatments with topical and systemic antifungals in CRS have
not shown evidence of their effectiveness in the current
literature.432,483-494
Preoperative period in patients with surgical

indications
The procedures used before CRS surgical procedures are
not homogenous and there are few evidence-based publi-
cations.
Combinations of antibiotics, steroids, nasal lavage, and
nasal decongestants are the most commonly used medi-
cations/procedures in the preoperative management. The
use of antibiotics to prevent postoperative infections has
been adopted in endoscopic sinonasal surgery (ESS), in
which 77% of the cases have potentially pathogenic spe-
cies in the nasal cavity, such as S. aureus, Klebsiella spp.,
and/or E. coli. Moreover, patients with CRS usually receive
repeated courses of antibiotics, which favors the develop-
ment of resistant pathogenic species. Although antibiotics
crease inflammation by minimizing infection and 24 h prior
therefore improving the operative field, there are no
clinical trials justifying this practice, and only a few
studies have assessed the postoperative
management.495
According to Portela et al.,496 27% of the surgeons pre-
scribed antibiotics preoperatively, whereas 35% did so
postoperatively. The drugs used were amoxicillin-
clavulanate, clarithromycin, erythromycin, and
doxycycline, among others, for a period ranging
between seven to 40 days. A recent survey among
members of the American Rhinologic Society found that
approximately 90% of otorhinolaryngologists prescribed
antibiotics for three to four weeks in the treatment of
CRS.497
In some institutions, such as Stanford University and
the Johns Hopkins Hospital, patients are advised about
the possibility of using antibiotics preoperatively, in the
presence of active infection. In Brazil, the University of
São Paulo (USP) protocol proposes amoxicillin-
clavulanate, five to seven days before surgery, for
patients with severe inflammatory infections.498-500
Maier and Strutz501 designed a study with 106 pa-
tients, including some submitted to parotidectomy and
neck dissection. Thirty-six patients in the sinonasal en-
doscopic surgery subgroup were randomly administered
a single dose of 1.5 g cefuroxime intravenously
preoperatively or that drug plus three additional doses
every eight hours postoperatively. There were no
reports of infection or side effects for any patient in the
ESS subgroup from either treatment arm.
Intraoperative prophylactic antibiotic therapy is also
controversial. Some guidelines501,502 for antibiotic
prophylaxis in surgery, such as that by the Surgical
Infection Soci- ety-Latin America, do not recommend the
use of antibiotics in endoscopic surgeries. In Brazil,
however, first-line hospi- tals recommend the
administration of prophylactic antibiotics. Cefazolin is
effective against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus
and Streptococcus (except pneumococcus and some
Gram-negative bacilli), and is the first choice for the
prophylaxis of potentially contaminated surgeries. Clin-
damycin can be used in patients allergic to beta-lactam.
Amoxicillin-clavulanate is the first choice for surgeries
with risk of contamination by anaerobic microorganisms.
Antibi- otic prophylaxis must be used during anesthesia.
The dose should be repeated if the operating time
exceeds the half- life of the antibiotic or if major
bleeding (10% to 20% of blood volume) occurs, requiring
no further doses postoperatively.495,503-506
Regarding preoperative use of corticosteroids, both
oral and topical administrations have well-documented
effects on CRS, especially in bilateral nasal polyposis.
Nonetheless, there is no standardization of dose and/or
type of oral corticosteroid to be used. Some studies
have shown the effectiveness of preoperative
corticosteroids on operative field improvement, reduced
bleeding and surgical time.507-509
Wright and Agraval507 performed a double-blinded, pla-
cebo-controlled RCT in patients undergoing endoscopic
surgery with CRSwNP. Participants were randomized to
receive 30 mg of prednisone or placebo for five days
preoperatively and nine days postoperatively. There was
no difference between the groups with respect to
postoperative symptoms.
Another randomized clinical trial evaluated the
effect of a single dose of prednisolone (1 mg/kg/dose
to surgery) versus five days of prednisolone (1 mg/kg/day
dilator sprays until the day of surgery. Those using steroids
before surgery), and preoperatively, in 80 patients with bi-
chronically can receive 100 mg of intravenous hydrocorti-
lateral NPs. The patients underwent surgery under general
sone at the immediate preoperative period. CT is essential
anesthesia, using the same protocol. Mean arterial blood
in surgical planning, and must be able to be viewed in the
pressure was 70-80 mm Hg in both groups. Mean bleeding
operating room. The patient should be instructed regarding
during the operation was 266.5 ± 96.31 mL in group A and
the procedure to be performed, the steps of the surgery,
206 ± 52.81 mL in group B, with a significant difference be-
and the inherent risks of the procedure. and this should be
tween groups. There was no significant difference between
documented by a signed informed consent.
groups regarding the surgeons’ opinion on the quality of
the operative field. In conclusion, in contrast to the single
1 mg/kg/ dose of prednisilone, treatment with that dosage
for five days can reduce blood loss during surgery and im- Surgical treatment: techniques
prove the quality of the operative field.508
A double-blinded, randomized study analyzed 70 pa- Several surgical techniques have been described for use in
tients with CRS with and without NP. Of that group, 35 patients with CRS with and without nasal polyposis who are
received mometasone furoate (MF) and the other 35, a refractory to medical treatment. There is no single gold
placebo for four weeks prior to ESS. Bleeding in the group standard technique that can be applied to all cases. Due to
treated with MF was 142.8 mL, less than that in the con- the lack of RCT, several aspects of the surgical
trol group (170.6 mL). The difference between groups was management remain controversial. The most important of
27.7 mL, which was statistically significant. The time of these is the extent of surgical dissection. As a result,
surgery was 59 minutes in the MF group and 70 minutes in based mainly on case series studies and expert opinions,
the control group. The difference was 11.2 minutes, which current guidelines suggest that surgical management
was statistically significant. The quality of the endoscopic should be individualized. The current trend in CRS with
surgical field was significantly better in patients treated and without nasal polyposis is that the surgical dissection
with MF. The use of the topical corticosteroid MF preop- proceed as far as the extent of the disease.1
eratively can improve endoscopic vision, reduce bleeding, The most commonly used surgical approach is the en-
and decrease time of surgery in patients with CRS with donasal access route. However, some cases may require an
and without polyps undergoing endoscopic surgery of the external or a combined access routes, such as lesions of
paranasal sinuses.509 the lateral maxillary sinus, the frontal sinus, or when there
are no reliable anatomical landmarks for an exclusive
Comments endonasal approach. Regardless of the technique and the
instruments used, there is clearly a learning curve in ESS.
Although there are controversies in patients with CRSsNP
The surgeon should have deep knowledge of the surgical
with purulent secretion, amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg,
anatomy and should have undergone training in specific
12/12h, or cefuroxime 500 mg, 12/12h, for seven to ten
courses on dissection of the nose and paranasal sinuses.
days can be used preoperatively and maintained for seven
Surgical treatment of CRS has advanced greatly with
to 21 days postoperatively. In some cases, fluoroquinolones
the use of sinonasal endoscopy. The image accuracy
and macrolides may be prescribed.
provided by the endoscopes (0 degree wide angle lens), as
In patients with CRSwNP, the use of oral corticosteroids well as their angulations (30, 45, and 70 degrees), allows
for three to five days (e.g., prednisone 0.50 mg/kg/day) is for the visualization of all the details and recesses of the
suggested, which is continued postoperatively according to paranasal cavities. Moreover, the development of other
extent of the disease. specific equipment and tools for intranasal and sinus use
Irrigation of the nasal mucosa with isotonic saline and (e.g., dilation balloons, neuronavigator, and
hypertonic saline solutions, with and without microdebrider) allow performing surgical procedures
preservatives, is a classic and safe measure in the
ranging from simple dilation of drainage ostia to complete
treatment of CRS; it is very useful to mobilize secretions
marsupialization of the paranasal sinuses into the nasal
and to promote mucosal hydration pre- and
postoperatively. However, there is no evidence for a cavity.510-512
The following paragraphs will briefly review the main
beneficial action if it is used alone.411
endoscopic techniques described for the surgical treatment
of CRS.
The most widely used technique for the surgical treat-
Preoperative evaluation according to patient ment of CRS is the functional endoscopic sinus surgery
age and comorbidities (FESS).513 However, the word “functional” was questioned,
and many now prefer the term endoscopic sinus surgery
Because they increase coagulation time and thus increase (ESS), which we will use hereafter. The word “functional”
bleeding, patients are advised to stop taking acetylsalicylic was previously used by authors to differentiate the pro-
acid, ibuprofen, and other NSAIDs, vitamin E, ginko biloba, cedure from the traditional techniques, which promoted
ginseng, and garlic tablets seven to ten days complete removal of paranasal sinus mucosa for the treat-
preoperatively, If the patient is anticoagulated, it should ment of CRS. The FESS technique, as originally described
be discontinued seven to ten days prior to endoscopic sinus by Messerklinger,513,514 aimed to improve ventilation of the
surgery, if at all possible. The partial thromboplastin and paranasal sinuses and, consequently, mucociliary function,
prothrombin time should be normal. Asthmatics patients or while preserving the mucosa as much as possible. Judicious
those with other comorbidities should be compensated removal of inflamed tissue and bone to clear and, where
preoperatively. For instance, patients with asthma may necessary, extend the natural drainage ostia are the basic
maintain broncho-
tenets of ESS. expe-
The surgical techniques employed by surgeons are quite
variable, especially the surgical instruments, the anatom-
ic landmarks, methods for hemostasis, the sequence and
especially the extent of dissection. Most surgeons follow
the anteroposterior lamellar dissection, as systematized by
Stammberger et al514 that begins with the unciform
process, then the ethmoid bulla, followed by the basal
lamella, and the sphenotomy. Others have as main
parameters the out- er limits of the dissection, that is, the
lamina papyracea laterally, the middle turbinate medially,
and the skull base posteriorly. This is the centripetal
technique.515
The way surgeons handle the sinus ostia, especially of
the maxillary, frontal, and sphenoid, as well as the intrasi-
nus inflammatory alterations and the middle turbinate, is
quite variable. Regardless of the technique used, it is vi-
tal that the natural drainage ostia are included in surgical
dissections to prevent the mucus recirculation phenome-
na with possible perpetuation, or even worsening, of the
chronic condition.
The traditional ESS was the initial proposal focused on
the removal of the disease, particularly located in the osti-
omeatal complex, with enlargement of the natural
drainage ostia and maximum preservation of the sinonasal
mucosa. The procedure quickly developed into dissection
and more extensive resections, including polypoid tissue,
osteitis, and enlargement of other natural drainage ostia,
when affected. Another objective of the technique is the
possibility of allowing further penetration of topical
medications postoperatively. For that purpose, larger
openings of the paranasal sinuses are necessary.436
However, some authors choose the surgical approach
focused only on the transition spaces of sinuses (pre-ostial
spaces of natural sinus drainage through which the air
circulates and secretions are drained), regardless of
disease extent.516,517 In this technique, called minimally
invasive sinus technique (MIST), the drainage ostia are not
extended and the procedure is performed mostly with the
microdebrider. At the opposite extreme, a technique
called nasalization is used, particularly in the surgical
management of severe CRSwNP.518 It consists of complete
sphenoethmoidectomy with mucosal removal associated
with total resection of the middle turbinate.
A major obstacle to this discussion is the lack of well-de-
signed comparative studies to allow for a more standardized
behavior among surgeons. More importantly, is the lack of a
pre- cise understanding of the etiological factors of CRS, as
well as the great variability and disease severity among
patients. Thus, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies
often do not take into account such factors as the associated
presence or absence of polyps, greater or lesser degree of
eosinophilia, intolerance to anti-inflammatory steroids etc.
The great deciding factor for surgeons is the endoscopic and
tomographic findings.
For these reasons, current guidelines indicate that sur-
gical treatment should be individualized according to the
patient’s clinical situation,1 typically correlating greater
extent of the disease with a more extensive procedure.
Masterson et al.519 compared anterior ethmoidectomy
with complete ethmoidectomy in 149 patients with CR-
SwNP undergoing ESS. The three-year follow-up showed
polyp recurrence in 12.5% of patients submitted to anteri-
or ethmoidectomy versus 4% of those undergoing complete
ethmoidectomy. The study also demonstrated that, in
rienced hands, the complication rates are small and do technique, postoperative sinonasal anatomy, and fluid
not depend on the extent of the procedure. dynamics (volume, pressure,
More recently, Wu et al.520 evaluated the factors affect-
ing the time to revision surgery in patients with CRSwNP.
The authors observed that middle turbinate resection
appears to increase the time of effectiveness of
endoscopic surgery in these cases. This is in agreement
with data previously described by Jankovski et al.518
Several studies, mainly case series, have
demonstrated very high success rates of ESS, as
traditionally described (88%, on average). 521-523 However,
recent evaluations showed that, given the high degree
of mucosal inflammation, surgical outcomes are
worse.524-526 Moreover, these patients may have better
outcomes with more radical and extensive surgery, such
as endoscopic maxillary mega-antrostomy and
endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure. 527-529
Fortunate- ly, technological improvements allow these
more radical techniques to be performed safely by
endoscopic endonasal approach in patients with CRS
recalcitrant to medical treatment and to traditional
endoscopic surgery.
The advent of the microdebrider brought great
advances in endonasal surgery. By facilitating the
removal of structures safely and quickly, in addition to
maintaining the operative field clean by constant
aspiration of blood and secretions, the microdebrider is
an important assistant, especially in cases of extensive
polyposis.530 The use of the neuronavigator, especially
in cases of extensive surgery or reoperation cases when
there are no reliable anatomical parameters,
significantly increased the safety of the procedure. 531
Another technique is the use of balloon sinuplasty. 511
The procedure involves inserting a catheter with a
balloon of different sizes through the transition space of
the paranasal sinuses; after verify- ing its location in the
drainage ostium (transillumination or image), it is used
to enlarge the ostia, without tissue resection. The
procedure is also feasible for the maxillary, frontal, and
sphenoid sinuses, but it is not useful for the ethmoid.
The procedure is relatively simple to perform and is
theoretically compelling, because there is less trauma to
the non-affected intranasal structures and a decreased
risk of post-operative scarring. However, the few
comparative studies with traditional endoscopic
techniques have failed to demonstrate convincing results
that would justify its high cost.511,532-534
Many authors consider balloons as instruments and
not as a surgical technique, much in the same way as
they use the microdebrider or neuronavigator and
perform hybrid surgeries. That is, together with
traditional endoscopic dissection, for instance, of the
ethmoid, balloon catheters are used to dilate the
natural drainage ostia of the other paranasal
sinuses.535
Postoperative topical treatment

Several products are available for postoperative topical
treatment. They can be applied at high or low volumes
with high, low, or negative pressure. 536 The capacity of
the drug to reach the appropriate anatomical region in
the paranasal sinuses has been the subject of extensive
research in the past five years. Effective topical therapy
depends on several factors, including application
position). These combined factors appear to have signifi-
CRSwNP
cant impact on the effectiveness of topical therapy on the
affected sinonasal mucosa. 537-540
Topical nasal corticosteroids are safe medications to use in
The mechanical removal of mucus, antigens,
postoperative period of patients with CRSwNP, with signifi-
pollutants, bacteria, and inflammatory products/biofilms is
cant improvement in symptoms, polyp size and rate of
the goal of the topical treatment. These interventions
often depend on high-volume and positive-pressure polyp recurrence in the first year after the surgery.547
solutions to provide shearing forces that change the Patients in the postoperative period of sinonasal sur-
surface tension between liquid and air. However, the same gery responded better to topical corticosteroids than those
approach may not be suit- able for the use of who did not undergo surgery with respect to a decrease in
pharmaceutical compositions that require properties the size of polyps. However, symptom and nasal airflow im-
aimed at complete distribution in the paranasal sinus, provement were not statistically different between the
long period of contact with the mucosa for local two groups. In a study by Rowe-Jones et al., 541 109
absorption, and minimal waste.536 patients (77 of whom had polyps) were randomized to
It is of utmost importance to continue medical treat- receive fluticasone spray postoperatively, starting six
ment postoperatively in almost all forms of CRS. Currently, weeks after ESS. The change in the visual analog scale and
nasal saline lavage and topical nasal steroids are recom- the endoscopic alterations of polyps were significantly
mended after ESS for CRS.437,536 better in the fluticasone group in five years, whereas more
The use of medication directly at the disease site has courses of prednisolone were prescribed in the placebo
the advantage of allowing high local doses and minimizing group in this period.
side effects.537 There appears to be no significant benefit in using
The topical solution distribution into the non-operated newer corticosteroids (mometasone, fluticasone, and
sinuses appears to be limited. Thus, ESS is essential to ciclesonide) in comparison to the first-generation drugs
allow effective topical distribution to the paranasal (budesonide, beclomethasone, triamcinolone) for symptom
sinuses.1 The postoperative distribution is superior with or polyp reduction.547
positive-pressure, high-volume devices.538-540 Low-volume
sprays and drops show poor distribution, and should be Topical antibiotics
considered only as treatment for the nasal cavity,
especially before the ESS. There are limited data on the The use of topical antibiotics is controversial, with dis-
exact volume necessary to allow complete distribution. agreement about the choice of antibacterial agent to be
Among the topical therapies used in the postoperative used, the dosage, method of use, and whether effective-
period of ESS, the following are noteworthy: ness is improved in a cavity postoperatively. Studies have
been conducted with topical preparations of tobramycin,
Topical corticosteroids mupirocin, neomycin, bacitracin/colimycin, and
ciprofloxacin. There is insufficient evidence to support a
There are four randomized, double-blinded, placebo-con- clear benefit of using topical antibiotics in the
trolled, level 1b trials that evaluated the use of topical postoperative period of ESS.437
corticosteroids in the early postoperative period; three of
them recommend their use,541-543 and only one did not Nasal irrigation with saline solution
show any benefits.544
Many theories about the potential physiological benefit of
CRSsNP using nasal saline solution irrigation have been proposed,
such as improvement in mucus clearance, increased ciliary
The effectiveness of topical corticosteroids has been inves- beat activity, and break-up and removal of antigens, bio-
tigated in different studies and almost all have shown that film, and inflammatory mediators, as well as direct sinus
CCs can reduce patient symptoms. 545 Studies have com- mucosal protection. The use of nasal saline irrigation has
pared the effectiveness of clinical treatment in patients been recommended by otorhinolaryngologists, both as an
not submitted to surgery with clinical treatment after ESS, adjuvant therapy for chronic sinonasal symptoms, as well
showing that the latter group presented a better response as to moisten and cleanse sinonasal clots and crusts and
to treatment and better olfactory function, based on promote mucosal healing in the postoperative period.437
objective and subjective criteria.545 Isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions are often used
In patients with CRSsNP, only those who had undergone as nasal shower (irrigation with high-volume and low pos-
prior ESS showed symptom improvement with topical cor- itive-pressure syringes to achieve a greater degree of me-
ticosteroid use. When the types of corticosteroids were chanical debriding), nasal spray, or nebulizer for the treat-
evaluated, comparing the more recent (mometasone, fluti- ment of paranasal sinus diseases, especially as an adjuvant
casone, ciclesonide) with the first-generation drugs to other therapies, such as ESS.532,548
(budesonide, betamethasone, triamcinolone, Nasal saline solution irrigation can improve chronic RS
dexamethasone), no significant difference was observed symptoms, especially after sinonasal surgery.
regarding symptoms in either group. 1 A recent Cochrane Depending on the mode of application, the penetration
review has demonstrated that the use of topical of isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions in the paranasal
corticosteroids in patients with CRSsNP showed greater sinuses differs, depending on whether patients are submit-
benefit in symptom control when they were introduced ted to ESS or not.
directly in the sinus cavity, instead of using common nasal Wormald et al.549 compared the use of nasal spray, nasal
sprays.546
mist, and nasal showers in patients undergoing ESS. Each
• Capsaicin: RCT was performed in patients at the
method was tested using a technetium tracer. The accu-
postoperative period of ESS using capsaicin (cotton
mulation of radioactivity was assessed in the anterior and
swab) into the middle meatus of both nostrils for 20
posterior nasal cavity, maxillary, sphenoid, and frontal si-
minutes once a week for five weeks, comparing them
nuses, in addition to the frontal recess. Although the nasal
with the control group. The treated group showed
cavity was well irrigated by the three techniques, the
improved staging of polyposis; this is a grade C
spray was significantly more effective in penetrating the
recommendation.1,556
maxillary sinus and frontal recess compared to the other
methods. The sphenoid and frontal sinuses were poorly
irrigated by all three methods. Comments
The nasal shower effectiveness after surgery was eval- Nasal lavage with isotonic saline solution may be used in
uated in a blinded RCT. Nasal showers were used by 22 the immediate postoperative period of CRS, as well as
patients after surgery on one side of the nasal cavity, three topical nasal corticosteroids, which can be initiated two to
times a day for six weeks. The opposite nasal cavity was three weeks after surgery, or after the disappearance of
not irrigated. The presence of adhesions, polyps, crusts, crusts. There are no relevant data in the literature to
secretions, or edema was evaluated three weeks and support the use of other topical nasal agents in the
three months after surgery. At three weeks, the saline postoperative period of CRS.
solution showers improved the presence of secretion or
edema, but had no effect on adhesion or crusts. At three
months, there were no significant differences between Postoperative systemic treatment
both nasal cavities.550
A study that evaluated three randomized trials in pa- Postoperative systemic treatment of CRS with or without
tients after sinonasal endoscopic surgery demonstrated nasal polyps may involve the use of corticosteroids and an-
that two of them obtained better outcomes with intranasal tibiotics, and is discussed below.
saline solution when compared with the group without
irrigation, whereas the third showed no difference in
Corticosteroids
symptom scores between patients who used hypertonic
saline solution and those without irrigation. Patients who
After the surgical treatment of CRS, systemic corticoster-
used hypertonic saline solution had more pain. In
oids may be used in mainly two ways: in short doses, be-
general, normal saline solutions are well tolerated. Side
tween seven and 14 days, with a maintenance dose
effects, including nasal discomfort, nasal discharge,
through- out treatment, or for longer periods, using
epistaxis, headache, and earache are rare. Most studies
show improvement in symptoms and quality of life with decreasing doses.556,557 The main role of corticosteroids in
the use of nasal irrigation, but whether the hypertonic this type of disease is to reduce mucosal inflammation,
saline solution is superior to the isotonic solution remains thus providing better surgical results. However, these drugs
are still avoid- ed by many surgeons due to their potential
unclear.551
Rudmik et al.552 reviewed six studies on care after ESS side effects.
and found that most of them showed improvement in A phase 1b trial (randomized, double-blinded, placebo-
symptom scores using saline solutions postoperatively. controlled), performed by Wright and Agrawal,507 evaluated
Among these studies, the one by Liang et al.553 compared the endoscopic findings in the postoperative period in pa-
irrigations with saline solutions combined with tients with CRSwNP, who used 30 mg daily of prednisone
postoperative debridement versus debridement alone, five days before the surgical procedure, plus 30 mg a day
and found that postoperative debridement combined with for nine days postoperatively. In addition to a better intra-
the use of saline solution irrigation significantly improved operative status in the patients taking corticosteroids, the
the endoscopic appearance and symptoms in patients with results showed significant improvement in endoscopic mu-
mild CRS, although no improvement was observed in cosal appearance up to six months postoperatively, more
moderate and severe cases. The authors concluded that evident in the second week. It is worth mentioning that,
nasal irrigation with saline solution is well tolerated and regarding postoperative symptoms, there was no
improves the endoscopic appearance and early difference between the treatment groups. Both groups
postoperative symptoms, with evidence level 1b and 2b. 552 (placebo and prednisone) showed significant improvement
Nasal lavages are therefore recommended for CRS in the postoperatively when compared with the preoperative
postoperative period in adults. period.
After careful assessment of the risks and benefits, the
use of oral corticosteroids for short periods of time can be
Others
considered, aiming to minimize inflammation during the
healing period and prevent complications associated with
• Surfactants: There are no RCTs to recommend the mucosal edema and crust formation, especially in cases of
use of surfactants (including baby shampoo)
CRSwNP.556
postoperatively.554,555
Regarding the use of corticosteroids in the
• Antifungals: No benefit was observed in RCT or sys- postoperative period of patients with AFRS, many non-
tematic reviews on the use of topical antifungals in placebo-controlled studies showed a positive effect. 558-560
the postoperative period of CRS.437,486
Rupa et al.,561 in a prospective, randomized, double-
• Furosemide: Based on current data of long-term post-
blinded, placebo-controlled trial (level 1b), compared
operative period of nasal surgery, treatment with
the outcomes of patients submitted to surgery with a
furosemide is not recommended.556 diagnosis of AFRS. One group of patients received 50 mg of
prednisone orally a day for six weeks and subsequently,
decreased doses for six weeks,
while another group was given placebo for 12 weeks. Af- post-operative radi-
ter this period, a significant improvement was observed re-
garding symptoms and at the endoscopic examination in
the group that had used corticosteroids. All patients
received topical corticosteroids and systemic antifungal
(itraconazole) for 12 weeks. At 18 months
postoperatively, patients who had interrupted the
treatment, including topical corticosteroids, had disease
recurrence. It is therefore difficult to assess whether
treatment with oral corticosteroids for 12 weeks had an
impact on evolution at 18 months.
Antibiotics
The purpose of antibiotic use postoperatively is to prevent

infection of the secretions retained in the paranasal
sinuses immediately after surgery. If there is purulent
secretion during the surgical procedure, antibiotics
should be prescribed, based on the culture and sensitivity
test. Otherwise, antibiotics effective against the most
common pathogens should be employed.557 A meta-analysis
and systematic review published in 2011, that included
three articles, demonstrated that the prophylactic use of
antibiotics in the postoperative period did not result in
statistically significant reduction of infection, endoscopic
scores, and symptoms.562 It is worth mentioning the
randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial
(level 1b) conducted by Albu et al.,563 which evaluated the
protocol for the use of 625 mg of amoxicillin twice daily
for two weeks postoperatively. The results showed
improvement of symptoms within the first five days and of
the endoscopic appearance within the first 12 days.
Additionally, there was a significant reduction in crust for-
mation. Another level 1b study assessed the use of antibi-
otics for just two days postoperatively and observed no ef-
fective result.564
There is only one level 1b study, published in 1995,
which found benefits regarding the use of macrolides for
long periods (12 weeks) postoperatively.565 As there are no
other specific studies that assessed the effects of this
medication specifically in the postoperative period,
macrolides have been used for a long time, regardless of
the postoperative period. In this sense, the evidence is
contradictory; in light of current knowledge, it points to
possible positive results in patients with CRSsNP and
normal IgE.426,427
Comments
In spite of the scarcity of literature data on antibiotic ef-
fectiveness in the postoperative period of endoscopic sinus
surgery, it is believed that they can improve symptoms and
endoscopic appearance, if used for a longer period (at
least 14 days), but there is no conclusive data about the
duration of these benefits. In general, penicillin
derivatives, particularly amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and
cefuroxime-axetil are the most commonly used.
Antifungals
Kennedy et al.207 performed a single controlled trial (1b)

comparing the use of the antifungal terbinafine with
placebo in patients with chronic RS with nasal polyps who
showed (or did not show) positivity for fungi. The results
demonstrated that terbinafine did not improve symptoms or
ological findings, even in cases where the culture was rhinitis. Additionally, there
positive for fungi. A number of other non-controlled trials
showed con- flicting results regarding the postoperative use
of systemic antifungals in CRS, with some of them showing
significant side effects of such medication.492,493,561,566
Based on current data, the use of systemic antifungals in
the postoperative period of chronic RS with nasal polyps is
not recommended.1
Special aspects of rhinosinusitis in children
Epidemiology
On average, children younger than 5 years of age have be-

tween two and seven episodes of upper respiratory tract
infections (URTI) per year.567,568 If they attend
kindergarten and daycare centers, the number episodes
increases to 14 per year.569 It is estimated that 4% to 7.3%
of URTIs develop into ABRS, occurring most often in
children in their first year of life and those attending
daycare.570
Paranasal sinuses in the child
Not all paranasal sinuses are developed at birth.

• Frontal sinus: its development starts at 4 years of
age, with slow growth thereafter. Only 20% to 30% of
children younger than 6 years have a
radiographically visible frontal sinus. Over 85% will
have frontal sinus pneumatization on CT by the age
of 12.571
• Ethmoid and maxillary sinuses: they are already de-
veloped enough at birth; these are the ones that
have clinical significance in RS. The ethmoid sinuses
grow rapidly until 7 years of age, and their
development is complete at around 15-16 years of
age. The maxillary sinus usually is pneumatized at
birth and its volume is approximately 2 mL at 2
years of age, 10 mL at 9 years, and 14.8 mL at 15
years.572 Most of the growth after 12 years of age
occurs in the lower portion, with pneumatization of
the alveolar process occurring after the secondary
dentition. The floor of the maxillary sinus, which is
higher than the nasal cavity floor level in children,
will lower, and it will be approximately 4-5 mm
inferior to the nasal cavity in adult life.
• Sphenoid sinus: at birth, the sphenoid sinus is a
small evagination of the sphenoethmoidal recess.
At age 7 years, it extends posteriorly, and at age 8,
around 85% of patients have pneumatization that is
visible on CT;571 it reaches full development at
approximately 15 years, but it can continue to grow
into adulthood.
Definition and classification of ARS in children
ARS is defined and classified in children in the same way

as it is in adults.
Diagnosis
The clinical diagnosis of ARS in children is not easy to

establish. Many symptoms are common to other
childhood diseases such as colds, flu, and allergic
are limitations and difficulties in the clinical examination There is probably a high percentage of association between
of the pediatric population.
Most frequent signs and symptoms
Studies in children with ARS show that the clinical picture

often includes fever (50% to 60%), rhinorrhea (71% to 80%),
cough (50% to 80%), and pain (29% to 33%),38 in addition to
retronasal secretion and nasal obstruction. 19 In children up
to preschool age, the pain symptom has low prevalence,
being replaced by cough, whereas in schoolchildren and
adolescents, pain becomes more common.
Although there are not many studies on the subject,
most physicians and guidelines recommend that the diag-
nosis of ABRS should be clinical, based on time of evolution
(URTI symptoms lasting more than ten days), abrupt onset
of marked symptoms (as early as in the first four days), or
symptoms worsening after the initial period of
improvement during a URTI, known as “double worsening”.
High fever, abundant nasal purulent discharge, periorbital
edema, and facial pain may be part of the signs and
symptoms.1,19,573-576
Clinical examination
In addition to the signs and symptoms mentioned above,

nasal endoscopy helps in the diagnosis and differentiates
between viral and bacterial cases by allowing visualization
of nasal and nasopharynx secretions. When it identifies pu-
rulent secretion draining from the middle meatus it estab-
lishes the diagnosis for acute bacterial RS. However, it is
not always easy to perform in children. Moreover, despite
the high specificity, it has a low degree of sensitivity, as a
negative examination does not exclude the diagnosis of
ABRS.
Imaging study
There is practically a consensus, among all the most

recently published guidelines, that the diagnosis of ARS
should not be based on radiological examinations,
particularly plain radiographs. 1,573,576
Viral processes in children often involve the paranasal
sinuses. Children with symptoms of URTI for at least six
days of clinical picture usually show signs of abnormalities
in all sinuses: maxillary and ethmoid, sphenoid, and
frontal, in order of frequency. The opacification is
nonspecific and may occur in viral, bacterial, allergic
processes, as well as in tumors, or simply reflect a lack of
sinus development.
CT studies in children with a clinical picture suggestive
of ARS demonstrated that even the most important clini-
cal pictures show significant alteration regression after
two weeks.577 Indications for CT in acute sinus pictures
should, therefore, be reserved for patients who do not
improve and whose symptoms persist after appropriate
therapy, as well as in those with suspected
complications.574
Differential diagnosis
The main differential diagnosis of ARS in children is infec-

tious acute adenoiditis, as it might show very similar signs
and symptoms, including cough and posterior secretion.
the two diseases, although this differentiation is
difficult to attain in clinical practice. Studies
demonstrated that, of children with symptoms for over
ten days, approximately 89.2% have ARS, whereas 19.2%
have associated adenoiditis. Adenoiditis alone is
present in approximately 7% of the children. Younger
patients (2 to 5 years old) have a higher frequency of
ARS/adenoiditis association.578 In clinical practice,
differential diagnosis is not always necessary, as treat-
ment is the same for both entities.
Another less important differential diagnosis is that
of nasal foreign body. In these cases, the secretion is
usually fetid and almost always unilateral.
Bacteriology
The most common etiologic agents in ABRS in children

are S. pneumoniae, H. influenza, M. catarrhalis, S.
pyogenes, and anaerobic bacteria.19,579
ARS drug treatment in children
Most are self-limited, resolving spontaneously.1
Antibiotics
The results of a meta-analysis suggest that the rate of

resolution and improvement in ARS between seven and
15 days is slightly higher when antibiotics are used. 579
For this reason, it is believed that antibiotics should be
reserved for more severe cases or in the presence of
concomitant diseases, which could be exacerbated by
ARS, such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. 1,573,575
However, there is yet no universal consensus on the type
of antibiotics to be used in ARS.
In general, amoxicillin (40 mg/kg/day or 80
mg/kg/day) is still considered a sensible initial
treatment in most studies. Amoxicillin/clavulanate and
cephalosporins are considered good options against
beta-lactamase producers,1 and must be indicated in
case of a first treatment failure.
Similar to the recommendations for acute otitis
media, in ARS there is also the option of a single dose of
ceftriaxone 50 mg/kg IV (intravenous) or IM
(intramuscular) for children who are vomiting, unable to
tolerate oral medication.62-64 If there is clinical
improvement in 24 hours, treatment is completed with
an oral antibiotic.575
For patients allergic to penicillin, there is some con-
troversy among the latest international guidelines. Some
consider trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, macrolides,
and clindamycin to be good options 1 in these situations.
Others do not recommend the use of trimethoprim-
sulfamethoxazole and macrolides due to the increasing
resistance of pneumococci and H. influenzae to these
drugs, suggesting a quinolone, such as levofloxacin, as
an alternative, especially in older children, even
considering toxicity, cost, and emerging resistance.580,581
There are no reviews on the optimal treatment dura-
tion. Recommendations based on clinical observations
have varied widely, from 10 to 28 days of treatment.
One suggestion has been to maintain therapy for seven
days after symptom resolution.582
Intranasal corticosteroids established. It is
Intranasal corticosteroids for three weeks combined with

antibiotic therapy appears to have advantages in relation
to ARS treatment in children and adolescents compared to
antibiotic use alone, especially regarding cough and nasal
secretion.85,92,95
A single double-blinded, randomized trial in patients
older than 12 years found that a double dose of intranasal
corticosteroids, as the sole drug used, was more effective
for ARS control than treatment with antibiotics alone. 85
Adjuvant therapy
A systematic review of the literature regarding the

efficacy of oral or intranasal decongestants,
antihistamines, and saline irrigation has shown no
evidence of efficacy in children with ARS.100
Recurrent ARS (rARS)

Most authors agree that rARS is defined by acute episodes
lasting less than 30 days, with intervals of at least ten days
when the patient is totally asymptomatic. According to
some authors, the patient should have at least four
episodes a year to meet the criteria of recurrence.575
As in chronic conditions, systemic causes should be
sought and ruled out. The investigation should include
allergic processes, by performing specific tests;
immunoglobulin deficiencies, with quantitative
determinations, particularly for IgA and IgG; CF;
gastroesophageal reflux; and ciliary diseases. 583 Pharyngeal
tonsil hypertrophy, even when mild, should also be
considered because of the possibility of the tonsils acting
as a reservoir for pathogens. Although of little relevance in
children, anatomical factors, such as concha bullosa and
septal deviation should also be ruled out. In these cases,
CT, nasal endoscopy and/or MRI can assist in the diagnosis
of obstructive processes and malformations.
The bacteriology is the same of ARS and, therefore, the
treatment of the acute phase should follow the same
princi- ples.584 Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged
that several antibiotic agents taken in a short intervals of
time can lead to bacterial resistance. Prophylaxis with
antimicrobials should be reserved for exceptional cases,
usually when underlying diseases are confirmed,
particularly immunodeficiencies.
Annual vaccination for influenza and pneumococcal vac-
cine are recommended as general prophylactic measures. In
cases where allergic rhinitis or gastroesophageal reflux is
present at the same time, the frequency of acute events
decreases when the associated disease is treated. Several
studies have demonstrated that immunostimulatory
medications, such as bacterial lysates, help to control
recurrent viral and bacterial RTIs, and may be an adjunct
treatment in rARS control.113
Particularities of chronic rhinosinusitis in chil-

dren
CRS is not as frequently studied in children as it is in
adults, and its prevalence has not yet been fully
believed that several factors contribute to the disease,
including inflammatory and bacteriological components,
and that the pharyngeal tonsil is an important
consideration in this age group. Treatment is mainly
medical, and surgical therapy is reserved for a minority of
patients.
Definition
CRS is defined in children, similarly to adults, as inflam-

mation of the nasal mucosa and paranasal sinuses having
a duration equal to or longer than 12 weeks without
improvement periods.1
Physiopathology
Anatomical factors
It is unclear whether the anatomical abnormalities some-

how contribute to the development and maintenance of
CRS in children. Studies suggest that, in spite of the
common occurrence of these anatomical factors (concha
bullosa, concha hypertrophy, septal deviation, among
others), they do not appear to be correlated with the
presence of CRS or the degree of involvement.1
Role of adenoids
Studies related to the role of adenoids in CRS are being

conducted, but are still limited. They suggest a role for
adenoids in patients with CRS, both from the
bacteriological and immunological viewpoints. All of
them confirmed the hypothesis that, regardless of the
size of the pharyngeal tonsil, they can be a reservoir for
bacterial sinus infections.585,586
Allergic rhinitis
Apparently, children with CRS have positive radioaller-

gosorbent tests (RAST) for IgE, in the same proportion as
the general population, suggesting that a causal
relationship between CRS and allergies in children
remains controversial and probably does not exist.587,588
Asthma
Asthma is a disease commonly associated with CRS in

pediatric patients. However, the limitations of most
available studies include lack of good controls or
randomization to different treatment modalities and,
therefore, the association between CRS and asthma in
children should be further studied.
GERD
GERD has also been associated with RS in several studies.

Despite some evidence demonstrating an association be-
tween GERD and CRS, more controlled trials are needed
to reinforce this association and validate it. Thus, routine
antireflux treatment of children with CRS is not justified.1
Immunodeficiency fusobacteria.592-594
Studies in children with rARS (recurrent acute

rhinosinusitis) and CRS have shown reasonable percentage
of immune dysfunction, including decreased levels of
IgG3, IgA, and IgG1, with poor response to pneumococcal
vaccine and low levels of immunoglobulin in response to
normal vaccines. There- fore, it is recommended to
evaluate immune function in children with recurrent CRS
through immunoglobulin measurements and titrations of
tetanus and diphtheria, as well as of pneumococcus. If
responses are abnormal, examinations should be
repeated after pneumococcal vaccination.1
PCD
The diagnosis should be suspected in a child with atypical

asthma, bronchiectasis, chronic productive cough, CRS, and
severe otitis media (especially chronic drainage in children
with tubes). Specific diagnosis requires examination of cilia by
electron microscopy, which is usually available in specialized
centers.1
CF
The prevalence of CRS in these patients is high and nasal

polyps occur between 7% and 50% of affected individu-
als.589,590 This is one of the few causes of NP in children
and the finding is unusual; when present, it should lead to
a suspicion of CF or AFRS. This also shows a fairly unique
clinical picture, which includes NP and characteristic CT
and MRI images.591
Clinical picture and diagnosis
The clinical diagnosis of chronic RS in children is still consid-

ered a challenge, as it often overlaps with those of other
common childhood illnesses, such as viral infections of the
upper respiratory tract, hypertrophy of the pharyngeal
tonsils/adenoiditis, and allergic rhinitis. The most important
signs and symptoms include nasal
obstruction/stuffiness/congestion, rhinorrhea
(anterior/posterior); less commonly facial pain/ pressure,
and cough. CT and endoscopic examination can show
relevant changes in the nose, paranasal sinuses and mucosa.1
Imaging tests
Studies that have assessed the incidence of abnormalities

in the paranasal sinuses on CT obtained for clinical reasons
unrelated to the CRS in children have shown a percentage
of radiographic sinus abnormalities ranging from 18%2,3 to
45%, similar to those found in children with CRS symptoms.
This demonstrates that the significance of imaging tests is
relative and must always be considered together with the
clinical picture.
Bacteriology
There are few studies on the bacteriology of CRS in

children. Microorganisms identified intraoperatively or in
aspirates include: S. alpha hemolytic, S. aureus, S.
pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis, as well as
anaerobic organ- isms such as bacteroides and Brook I
Treatment
Drug therapy
Existing studies demonstrate that short-term antibiotic

therapy in children with CRS is not justifiable. 1
Conversely, both nasal corticosteroids and saline solution
have shown to be beneficial and are considered the
first-line treatment for this disease, whether with or
without nasal polyps.595,596
Surgical treatment
The surgical approach should always be reserved for spe-

cial cases, i.e., children who have not responded to
appropriate medical treatment. Studies have shown
significant clinical and quality of life improvement,
without negative effects in relation to facial
osteoskeletal sequelae.597 Un- fortunately, most studies
supporting this recommendation are not prospective and
randomized. In general, the surgical approach, when
indicated, may consist first of an adenoidectomy 597
with maxillary sinus lavage.598 The surgery can be
performed with or without balloon dilation, 599,600
followed by endoscopic paranasal sinus surgery in cases
of recurrence of symptoms.601 In cases of children with
CF, NP, antrochoanal polyps or AFRS, endoscopic surgery
is the first option. Perhaps future studies, comparing the
several methods of treatment with standardized pre-
and postoperative questionnaire, can guide the best
therapeutic approach in patients with CRS.
References
1. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I,
Baroody F, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis
4 and nasal polyps 2012. Rhinology Suppl. 2012;23:1-298.
2. Kosugi EM, Chen VG, Fonseca VMGD, Cursino MMP, Mendes
Neto JA, Gregorio LC. Translation, cross-cultural
adaptation and validation of SinoNasal Outcome Test
(SNOT): 22 to Brazilian Por- tuguese. Braz J
Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;77:663-9.
3. Hopkins C. Patient reported outcome measures in
rhinology. Rhinology. 2009;47:10-7.
4. Morley AD, Sharp H. A review of sinonasal outcome scoring
systems – which is best? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31:103-9.
5. Babar-Craig H, Gupta Y, Lund VJ. British Rhinological Socie-
ty audit of the role of antibiotics in complications of acute
rhinosinusitis: a national prospective audit. Rhinology.
2010;48:344-7.
6. Neumark T, Brudin L, Engstrom S, Molstad S. Trends in
number of consultations and antibiotic prescriptions for
respiratory tract infections between 1999 and 2005 in
primary healthcare in Kalmar County, Southern Sweden.
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2009;27:18-24.
7. van Gageldonk-Lafeber AB, Heijnen ML, Bartelds AI, Peters
MF, van der Plas SM, Wilbrink B. A case-control study of
acute respiratory tract infection in general practice
patients in The Netherlands. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:490-
7.
8. Rank MA, Wollan P, Kita H, Yawn BP. Acute exacerbations of
chronic rhinosinusitis occur in a distinct seasonal pattern. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:168-9.
9. Eccles R. An explanation for the seasonality of acute up-
per respiratory tract viral infections. Acta Otolaryngol.
2002;122:183-91.
10. Suonpaa J, Antila J. Increase of acute frontal sinusitis in
32. Braun JJ, Alabert JP, Michel FB, Quiniou M, Rat C, Cougnard
south- western Finland. Scand J Infect Dis. 1990;22:563-8.
J, et al. Adjunct effect of loratadine in the treatment of
11. Bhattacharyya N. Air quality influences the prevalence of hay
acute sinusitis in patients with allergic rhinitis. Allergy.
fever and sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:429-33.
12. Trevino RJ. Air pollution and its effect on the upper respirato- 1997;52:650-5.
ry tract and on allergic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck 33. Ciprandi G, Buscaglia S, Pesce G, Villaggio B, Bagnasco M, Ca-
Surg. 1996;114:239-41. nonica GW. Allergic subjects express intercellular adhesion
13. Zuskin E, Mustajbegovic J, Schachter EN, Kern J, Deck- ovic- molecule 1 (ICAM-1 or CD54) on epithelial cells of conjunctiva
Vukres V, Pucarin-Cvetkovic J, et al. Respiratory findings in after allergen challenge. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993;91:783-
pharmaceutical workers. Am J Ind Med. 2004;46:472-9. 92.
14. Jaakkola MS, Jaakkola JJ. Office equipment and supplies: 34. Ruoppi P, Seppa J, Nuutinen J. Acute frontal sinusitis: etio-
a modern occupational health concern? Am J Epidemiol. logical factors and treatment outcome. Acta Otolaryngol.
1999;150:1223-8. 1993;113:201-5.
15. Duclos P, Sanderson LM, Lipsett M. The 1987 forest fire 35. Savolainen S. Allergy in patients with acute maxillary
disaster in California: assessment of emergency room visits. sinusitis. Allergy. 1989;44:116-22.
Arch Envi- ron Health. 1990;45:53-8. 36. Iseh KR, Makusidi M. Rhinosinusitis: a retrospective analysis of
16. Alkire BC, Bhattacharyya N. An assessment of sinonasal ana- clinical pattern and outcome in north western Nigeria. Ann
tomic variants potentially associated with recurrent acute Afr Med. 2010;9:20-6.
rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:631-4. 37. Pant H, Ferguson BJ, Macardle PJ. The role of allergy in rhi-
17. Bomeli SR, Branstetter BFt, Ferguson BJ. Frequency of a nosinusitis. Current Opinion Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
dental source for acute maxillary sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2009;17:232-8.
2009;119:580-4. 38. Wang DY, Wardani RS, Singh K, Thanaviratananich S, Vicente
18. Mathew AL, Pai KM, Sholapurkar AA. Maxillary sinus findings in G, Xu G, et al. A survey on the management of acute
the elderly: a panoramic radiographic study. J Contemp Dent rhinosinusitis among Asian physicians. Rhinology.
Pract. 2009;10:E041-8. 2011;49:264-71.
19. Lin SW, Wang YH, Lee MY, Ku MS, Sun HL, Lu KH, et al. Clinical 39. Tamashiro E, Xiong G, Anselmo-Lima WT, Kreindler JL, Palmer
spectrum of acute rhinosinusitis among atopic and nonatopic JN, Cohen NA. Cigarette smoke exposure impairs respiratory
children in Taiwan. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. epithelial ciliogenesis. Am J Rhinol & Allergy. 2009;23:117-22.
2012;76:70-5. 40. De S, Leong SC, Fenton JE, Carter SD, Clarke RW, Jones AS.
20. Eccles R. Mechanisms of the symptoms of rhinosinusitis. Rhi- The effect of passive smoking on the levels of matrix
nology. 2011;49:131-8. metallopro- teinase 9 in nasal secretions of children. Am J
21. Melvin TA, Lane AP, Nguyen MT, Lin SY. Allergic rhinitis pa- Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:226-30.
tients with recurrent acute sinusitis have increased sinonasal 41. Bush A, Chodhari R, Collins N, Copeland F, Hall P, Harcourt J,
epithelial cell TLR9 expression. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. et al. Primary ciliary dyskinesia: current state of the art. Arch
2010;142:659-64. Dis Child. 2007;92:1136-40.
22. Vlastos I, Athanasopoulos I, Mastronikolis NS, Panogeorgou T, 42. Holzmann D, Felix H. Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome -
Margaritis V, Naxakis S, et al. Impaired mucociliary clearance
a sign of primary ciliary dyskinesia? Eur J Pediatr.
in allergic rhinitis patients is related to a predisposition to
2000;159:857- 60.
rhinosinusitis. Ear Nose Throat J. 2009;88:E17-9.
43. Hossain T, Kappelman MD, Perez-Atayde AR, Young GJ,
23. Ulanovski D, Barenboim E, Raveh E, Grossman A, Azaria B,
Huttner KM, Christou H. Primary ciliary dyskinesia as a cause
Shpitzer T. Sinusitis in pilots of different aircraft types: is
of neonatal respiratory distress: implications for the
allergic rhinitis a predisposing factor? Am J Rhinol.
neonatologist. J Perinatol. 2003;23:684-7.
2008;22:122-4.
44. Pedersen M, Mygind N. Rhinitis, sinusitis and otitis media in
24. Mbarek C, Akrout A, Khamassi K, Ben Gamra O, Hariga I, Ben
Amor M, et al. Recurrent upper respiratory tract infections in Kartagener’s syndrome (primary ciliary dyskinesia). Clin Oto-
children and allergy. A crosssectional study of 100 cases. Tunis laryngol Allied Sci. 1982;7:373-80.
Med. 2008;86:358-61. 45. Mygind N, Pedersen M. Nose, sinus- and ear-symptoms in 27
25. Schatz M, Zeiger RS, Chen W, Yang SJ, Corrao MA, Quinn VP. patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia. Eur J Respir Dis
The burden of rhinitis in a managed care organization. Ann Suppl. 1983;127:96-101.
Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101:240-7. 46. Bonham GS, Wilson RW. Children’s health in families with
26. Ciprandi G, Tosca MA, Fasce L. Allergic children have more cigarette smokers. Am J Public Health. 1981;71:290-3.
numerous and severe respiratory infections than non-allergic 47. Lin SY, Reh DD, Clipp S, Irani L, Navas-Acien A. Allergic
children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2006;17:389-91. rhinitis and secondhand tobacco smoke: a population-based
27. Naclerio R, Blair C, Yu X, Won YS, Gabr U, Baroody FM. study. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:e66-71.
Allergic rhinitis augments the response to a bacterial sinus 48. Brook I. Effects of exposure to smoking on the microbial flora
infection in mice: A review of an animal model. Am J Rhinol. of children and their parents. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
2006;20:524- 33. 2010;74:447-50.
28. Blair C, Nelson M, Thompson K, Boonlayangoor S, Haney L, 49. Brook I, Gober AE. Effect of smoking cessation on the
Gabr U, et al. Allergic inflammation enhances bacterial microbial flora. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
sinusitis in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;108:424- 9. 2007;133:135-8.
29. Alho OP. Nasal airflow, mucociliary clearance, and sinus func- 50. Pacheco-Galvan A, Hart SP, Morice AH. Relationship between
tioning during viral colds: effects of allergic rhinitis and sus- gastrooesophageal reflux and airway diseases: the airway re-
ceptibility to recurrent sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2004;18:349- flux paradigm. Arch Bronconeumol. 2011;47:195-203.
55. 51. Flook EP, Kumar BN. Is there evidence to link acid reflux with
30. Kirtsreesakul V, Blair C, Yu X, Thompson K, Naclerio RM. Desl- chronic sinusitis or any nasal symptoms? A review of the evi-
oratadine partially inhibits the augmented bacterial dence. Rhinology. 2011;49:11-6.
responses in the sinuses of allergic and infected mice. Clin 52. Adams TB, Wharton CM, Quilter L, Hirsch T. The association
Exp Allergy. 2004;34:1649-54. between mental health and acute infectious illness among a
31. Ciprandi G, Ricca V, Tosca M, Landi M, Passalacqua G, national sample of 18- to 24-year-old college students. J Am
Canonica GW. Continuous antihistamine treatment controls Coll Health. 2008;56:657-63.
allergic inflammation and reduces respiratory morbidity in 53. Principi N, Esposito S. New insights into pediatric rhinosinusi-
children with mite allergy. Allergy. 1999;54:358-65. tis. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2007;18:18:7-9.
54. Loughlin J, Poulios N, Napalkov P, Wegmuller Y, Monto AS. A
75. Wittkopf ML, Beddow PA, Russell PT, Duncavage JA, Becker
study of influenza and influenza-related complications among
SS. Revisiting the interpretation of positive sinus CT findings:
children in a large US health insurance plan database.
a radiological and symptombased review. Otolaryngol Head
Pharma- coeconomics. 2003;21:273-83.
Neck Surg. 2009;140:306-11.
55. Williams JW, Jr., Simel DL, Roberts L, Samsa GP. Clinical
76. Triulzi F, Zirpoli S. Imaging techniques in the diagnosis and
evaluation for sinusitis. Making the diagnosis by history and
management of rhinosinusitis in children. Pediatr Allergy Im-
physical examination. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:705-10.
munol. 2007 Nov; 18 Suppl 18:46-9.
56. Damm M, Quante G, Jungehuelsing M, Stennert E. Impact
77. Young J, De Sutter A, Merenstein D, van Essen GA, Kaiser L,
of functional endoscopic sinus surgery on symptoms and
Varonen H, et al. Antibiotics for adults with clinically diag-
quality of life in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope.
nosed acute rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis of individual pa-
2002;112:310-5.
tient data. Lancet. 2008;371:908-14.
57. Spector SL, Bernstein IL, Li JT, Berger WE, Kaliner MA,
78. Merenstein D, Whittaker C, Chadwell T, Wegner B, D’Amico
Schuller DE, et al. Parameters for the diagnosis and
F. Are antibiotics beneficial for patients with sinusitis com-
management of sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
plaints? A randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Fam Pract.
1998;102:S107-44.
2005;54:144-51.
58. Rosenfeld RM, Andes D, Bhattacharyya N, Cheung D,
79. Benninger MS, Sedory Holzer SE, Lau J. Diagnosis and
Eisenberg S, Ganiats TG, et al. Clinical practice guideline:
treatment of uncomplicated acute bacterial rhinosinusitis:
Adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:S1-31.
summary of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
59. Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO, Simon G, Jordan WS Jr. Rhinovi-
evidence-based report. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
rus infections in an industrial population. II. Characteristics of
2000;122:1-7.
illness and antibody response. JAMA 1967;202:494-500.
80. Meltzer EO, Bachert C, Staudinger H. Treating acute rhinosi-
60. Hansen JG. Management of acute rhinosinusitis in Danish gen-
nusitis: comparing efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate
eral practice: a survey. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:213-6.
nasal spray, amoxicilin, and placebo. J Allergy Clin Immunol
61. Desrosiers M, Evans GA, Keith PK, Wright ED, Kaplan A,
2005;116:1289-95.
Bouchard J, et al. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for
81. de Ferranti SD, Ioannidis JP, Lau J, Anninger WV, Barz M. Are
acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy Asthma Clin
amoxicillin and folate inhibitors as effective as other
Immunol. 2011;7:2.
antibiotics for acute sinusitis? A meta-analysis. BMJ. 1998;
62. Lacroix JS, Ricchetti A, Lew D, Delhumeau C, Morabia A, St-
317:632-7.
alder H, et al. Symptoms and clinical and radiological signs
82. Ip S, Fu L, Balk E, Chew P, Devine D, Lau J. Update on acute
predicting the presence of pathogenic bacteria in acute rhi-
bacterial rhinosinusitis. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ).
nosinusitis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2002;122:192-6.
2005;124:1-3.
63. Lindbaek M, Hjortdahl P, Johnsen UL. Use of symptoms, signs,
83. Tan T, Little P, Stokes T, Guideline Development Group.
and blood tests to diagnose acute sinus infections in prima-
Antibi- otic prescribing for self limiting respiratory tract
ry care: comparison with computed tomography. Fam Med.
infections in primary care: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ.
1996;28:183-8.
2008;337:a437.
64. Lindbaek M, Hjortdahl. The clinical diagnosis of acute pu-
84. Small CB, Bachert C, Lund VL, Moscatello A, Nayak AS, Berger
rulent sinusitis in general practice-a review. Br J Gen Pract.
WE. Judicious antibiotic use and intranasal corticosteroids in
2002;52:491-5.
acute rhinosinusitis. Am J Med. 2007;120:289-94.
65. Cain WS. Testing olfaction in a clinical setting. Ear Nose &
85. Barlan IB, Erkan E, Bakir M, Berrak S, Basaran M. Intrana-
Throat J. 1989;68:316, 22-8.
sal budesonide spray as an adjunt to oral antibiotic therapy
66. Cardesin A, Alobid I, Benitez P, Sierra E, de Haro J, Ber- nal-
for acute sinusitis in children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
Sprekelsen M, et al. Barcelona Smell Test - 24 (BAST-24):
1997;78:598-601.
validation and smell characteristics in the healthy Spanish
86. Yilmaz G, Varan B, Yilmaz T, Gürakan B. Intranasal budesonide
population. Rhinology. 2006;44:83-9.
spray as an adjunct to oralantibiotic therapy for acute
67. Fornazieri MA, Doty RL, Santos CA, Pinna FR, Bezerra TFP,
sinusitis in children. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;257:256-
Voegels RL. A new cultural adaptation of the University of
9.
Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Clinics. 2013;68:65-8.
87. Meltzer EO, Charous L, Busse WW, Zinreich J, Lorber RR, Dan-
68. Berg O, Carenfelt C. Analysis of symptoms and clinical
zig MR. Added relief in the treatment of acute recurrent
signs in the maxillary sinus empyema. Acta Otolaryngol.
sinusitis with adjunctive mometasone furoate nasal spray.
1988;105:343-9.
The Na- sonex Sinusitis Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
69. Hansen JG, Hojbjerg T, Rosborg J. Symptoms and signs in cul-
2000;106:630-7.
ture-proven acute maxillary sinusitis in a general practice
88. Nayak AS, Settipane GA, Pedinoff A, Charous L, Meltzer EO,
population. APMIS. 2009;117:724-9.
Busse WW, et al. Effective dose range of mometasone furoate
70. Berger G, Berger RL. The contribution of flexible endoscopy
nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis. Ann
for diagnosis of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Eur Arch
Aller- gy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89:271-8.
Otorhi- nolaryngol. 2011;268:235-40.
89. Dolor RJ, Witsell DL, Hellkamp AS, Williams Jr JW, Califf RM,
71. Hirshoren N, Hirschenbein A, Eliashar R. Risk stratification of
Simel DL, et al. Comparison of cefuroxime with or without
severe acute rhinosinusitis unresponsive to oral antibiotics.
intranasal fluticasone for the treatment of rhinosinusitis.
Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130:1065-9.
The CAFFS Trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
72. Cals JW, Schot MJ, de Jong SA, Dinant GJ, Hopstaken RM.
2001;286:3097-105.
Point of care C-Reactive Protein testing and antibiotic
90. Meltzer EO, Orgel A, Backhaus JW, Busse WW, Druce HM,
prescribing for respiratory tract infections: a randomized
Metzger J, et al. Intranasal flunisolide spray as an adjunt to
controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8:124-33.
oral antibiotics therapy for sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
73. Hansen JG, Lund E. The association between paranasal com-
1993,92:812-23.
puterized tomography scans and symptoms and signs in a gen-
91. Gehanno P, Beauvillain C, Bobin S, Chobaut JC, Desaulty A,
eral practice population with acute maxillary sinusitis. APMIS.
Dubreuil C, et al. Short therapy with amoxicillin-clavulanate
2011;119:44-8.
and corticosteroids in acute sinusitis: results of a multicentre
74. Lanz MJ, Prendes S, Peyrou N, Toledo G, Ferrer CM. Nasal
study in adults. Scand J Infect Dis. e2000;32:679-84.
nitric oxide as a noninvasive marker in the antibiotic treat-
92. Klossek JM, Desmonts-Gohler C, Des-landes B, Coriat F, Bor-
ment of acute bacterial sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
dure P, Dubreuil C, et al. Treatment of functional signs of
2008;121:530-1.
acute maxillary rhinosinusitis in adults. Efficacy and tolerance
of administration of oral prednisone for 3 days. Presse Med.
2004;33:303-9.
93. Adam P, Stiffman M, Blake RL Jr. A clinical trial of
hypertonic saline nasal spray in subjects with the common
cold or rhinosinusitis. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:39-43.
94. Kassel JC, King D, Spurling GK. Saline nasal irrigation for
115. Eviatar E, Gavriel H, Pitaro K, Vaiman M, Goldman M, Kess-
acute upper respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database
ler A. Conservative treatment in rhinosinusitis orbital com-
Syst Rev. 2010:CD006821.
plications in children aged 2 years and younger. Rhinology.
95. Shaikh N, Wald ER, Pi M. Decongestants, antihistamines and
2008;46:334-7.
nasal irrigation for acute sinusitis in children. Cochrane Data-
116. Neves M, Butugan O, Voegels R. Complicações das rinossinusi-
base Syst Rev. 2012;9:CD007909.
tes. In: Voegels R, Lessa M. Rinologia e Cirurgia Endoscópica
96. Tomooka LT, Murphy C, Davidson TM. Clinical study and liter-
dos Seios Paranasais. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2006, p. 243-
ature review of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1189-
255.
93.
117. Bayonne E, El Bakkoury W, Kania R. Complications Crâniennes
97. McCormick DP, John SD, Swischuk LE, Uchida T. A double-
et Endocrâniennes des infections rhinosinusiennes. Oto-rhi-
blind, placebo-con-trolled trial of decongestant-antihistamine
no-laryngologie, 2007;20-445-A-10
for the treatment of sinusitis in children. Clin Pediatr (Phila).
118. Atherino CCT, Meirelles RC. Complicações das Rinossinusites.
1996;35:457-60.
In: Tratado de ORL e Cirurgia Cervico-Facial. ABORLCCF. 1ª
98. Caenen M, Hamels K, Deron P, Clement P. Comparison of de-
Ed. São Paulo: Ed Roca, 2011. v. 3, p. 168-176.
congestive capacity of xylometazoline and pseudoephedrine
119. Hansen FS, Hoffmans R, Georgalas C, Fokkens WJ. Complica-
with rhinomanometry and MRI. Rhinology. 2005;43:205-9.
tions of acute rhinosinusitis in The Netherlands. Fam Pract.
99. Graf P. Long-term use of oxy- and xylometazoline nasal sprays
2012;29:147-53.
induces rebound swelling, tolerance, and nasal hyperreactivi-
120. Piatt JH Jr. Intracranial suppuration complicating sinusitis
ty. Rhinology. 1996;34:9-13.
among children: an epidemiological and clinical study. J Neu-
100. Eccles R, Jawad MS, Jawad SS, Angello JT, Druce HM. Efficacy
rosurg Pediatr. 2011;7:567-74.
and safety of single and multiple doses of pseudoephedrine
121. Stoll D, Klossek JM, Barbaza MO. Prospect ive s tudy of 43 se-
in the treatment of nasal congestion associated with common
vere complications of acute rhinosinusitis. Rev Laryngol Otol
cold. Am J Rhinol. 2005;19:25-31.
Rhinol (Bord). 2006;127:195-201.
101. Barnes ML, Biallosterski BT, Gray RD, Fardon TC, Lipworth
122. Bayonne E, Kania R, Tran P, Huy B, Herman P. Intracranial
BJ. Decongestant effects of nasal xylometazoline and mo-
complications of rhinosinusitis. A review, typical imaging
metasone furoate in persistent allergic rhinitis. Rhinology.
data and algorithm of management. Rhinology. 2009;47:59-
2005;43:291-5.
65.
102. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA,
123. Chandler JR, Langenbrunner DJ, Stevens ER. The
Bawazeer GA, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or re-
pathogenesis of orbital complications in acute sinusitis. The
duce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database
Laryngoscope. 1970;80:1414-28.
Syst Rev. 2011:CD006207.
124. Botting AM, McIntosh D, Mahadevan M. Paediatric pre and
103. Milvio C. Nimesulide for the treatment of painful
post-septal periorbital infections are different diseases. A
inflammatory process in the ear, nose and throat areas: a
retrospective review of 262 cases. Int J Pediatr
double-blind controlled study with benzydamine. J Int Mes
Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72:377-83.
Res. 1984;12:327- 332.
125. Gallagher RM, Gross CW, Phillips CD. Suppurative intracranial
104. Devillier P. Pharmacology of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
complications of sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 1998;108:1635-42.
drugs and ENT pathology. Presse Med. 2001;30:70-9.
126. Mortimore S, Wormald PJ. The Groote Schuur hospital classifi-
105. Stoll D. Inflammation rhinosinusienne aigue. Presse Med.
cation of the orbital complications of sinusitis. J Laryngol
2001;30:33-40.
Otol. 1997;111:719-23.
106. Oliver DR. Letter: Bisolvon for acute sinusitis. Med J Aust.
127. Velasco e Cruz AA, Demarco RC, Valera FC, dos Santos AC,
1974;2:794-5.
Anselmo-Lima WT, Marquezini RM. Orbital complications of
107. Tarantino V, Stura M, Marenco G, Leproux GB, Cremonesi G.
acute rhinosinusitis: a new classification. Braz J
Advantages of treatment with bromhexine in acute sinus in-
Otorhinolaryn- gol. 2007;73:684-8.
flammation in children. Randomized double-blind study
128. Brook I. Microbiology and antimicrobial treatment of orbital
versus placebo. Minerva Pediatr. 1988;40:649-52.
and intracranial complications of sinusitis in children and
108. Harris PG. Comparison of “bisolvomycin” and oxytetracycline
their management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
in the treatment of acute infective sinusitis. Practitioner.
2009;73:1183-6.
1971;207:814-7.
129. Edmonson NE, Parikh SR. Complications of acute bacterial si-
109. Unuvar E1, Tamay Z, Yildiz I, Toprak S, Kilic A, Aydin S, et al.
nustis in children. Pediatr Ann. 2008;37:680-5.
Effectiveness of erdosteine, a second generation mucolytic
130. François M. Ethmoidities Aigues Chez l’enfant. Otorhinolaryn-
agent, in children with acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized,
gologie, 2008. 20-440-A-10.
placebo controlled, double-blinded clinical study. Acta
131. Mekhitarian Neto L, Pignatari S, Mitsuda S, Fava AS, Stamm
Paediatr. 2010;99:585-9.
A. Acute sinusites in children: a retrospective study of orbital
110. Timmer A, Günther J, Rücker G, Motschall E, Antes G, Kern
complications. Braz J Otorhinol. 2007;73:75-9.
WV. Pelargonium sidoides extract for acute respiratory tract
132. Peña MT, Preciado D, Orestes M, Choi S. Orbital complications
infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(3):CD006323.
of acute sinusitis: changes in the post-pneumococcal vaccine
111. Federspil P, Wulkow R, Zimmermann T. Effects of
era. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:223-7.
standardized Myrtol in therapy of acute sinusitis--results of a
133. Ho CF, Huang YC, Wang CJ, Chiu CH, Lin TY. Clinical analysis
double-blind, randomized multicenter study compared with
of computed tomography-staged orbital cellulitis in children.
placebo. Laryn- gorhinootologie. 1997;76:23-7.
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007;40:518-24.
112. Hao Q, Lu Z, Dong BR, Huang CQ, Wu T. Probiotics for
134. Lessner A, Stern GA. Preseptal and orbital cellulitis. Infect Dis
preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections.
Clin North Am. 1992;6:933-52.
Cochrane Data- base Syst Rev. 2011:CD006895.
135. Babar TF, Zaman M, Khan MN, Khan MD. Risk factors of
113. Schaad UB. OM-85 BV, an immunostimulant in pediatric recur-
preseptal and orbital cellulitis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak.
rent respiratory tract infections: a systematic review. World J
2009;19:39- 42.
Pediatr. 2010;6:5-12.
136. Chaudhry IA, Shamsi FA, Elzaridi E, Al-Rashed W, Al-Amri A,
114. Anselmo-Lima WT, Velasco e Cruz AA. Complicações das
Arat YO. Inpatient preseptal cellulitis: experience from a ter-
rinossinusites. In: Costa SS, Cruz OLM, Oliveira JAA.
tiary eye care centre. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:1337-41.
Otorrinolaringo- logia: princípios e prática. 2ª Ed. Porto
137. Georgakopoulos CD, Eliopoulou MI, Stasinos S, Exarchou A,
Alegre: Artmed, 2006. p. 673-679.
Pharmakakis N, Varvarigou A. Periorbital and orbital cellulitis:
a 10-year review of hospitalized children. Eur J Ophthalmol.
2010;20:1066-72.
138. Gonzalez MO, Durairaj VD. Understanding pediatric bacterial
161. Herrmann BW, Chung JC, Eisenbeis JF, Forsen JW Jr. Intrac-
preseptal and orbital cellulitis. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol.
ranial complications of pediatric frontal rhinosinusitis. Am J
2010;17:134-7.
139. Bergin DJ, Wright JE. Orbital cellulitis. Br J Ophthalmol. Rhinol. 2006;20:320-4.
1986;70:174-8. 162. Germiller JA, Monin DL, Sparano AM, Tom LW. Intracranial
140. Gungor A, Adusumilli V, Corey JP. Fungal sinusitis: progression complications of sinusites in children and adolescents and
of disease in immunosuppression--a case report. Ear, Nose & their outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg.
Throat J. 1998;77:207-10, 15. 2006;132:969- 76.
141. Coenraad S, Buwalda J. Surgical or medical management of 163. Hakim HE, Malik AC, Aronyk K, Ledi E, Bhargava R. The preva-
subperiosteal orbital abscess in children: a critical appraisal lence of intracranial complications in pediatric frontal sinusi-
of the literature. Rhinology. 2009;47:18-23. tis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70:1383-7.
142. Jones H, Trinidade A, Jaberoo MC, Lyons M. Periorbital 164. Ogunleye AO, Nwaorgu OG, Lasisi AO. Complications of sinusi-
cellulitis, subgaleal abscess and superior sagittal sinus tis in Ibadan, Nigeria. West Afr J Med. 2001;20:98-101.
thrombosis: a rare combination of complicationsarising from 165. Butugan O, Balbani APS, Voegels R. Complicações das Rinossi-
unilateral fron- talsinusitis. J Laryngol Otol. 2012;126:1281-3. nusites. In: Campos CAH, Costa HOO. Tratado de
143. Leo G, Triulzi F, Incorvaia C. Sinus imaging for diagnosis of Otorrinolarin- gologia. São Paulo: Roca, 2003, v. 3, 107-117.
chronic rhinosinusitis in children. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 166. Page C, Lehmann P, Jeanjean P. Abcès et empyèmes in-
2012;12:136-43. tracrâniens d’origine ORL Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cerviofac.
144. Oxford LE, McClay J. Complications of acute sinusitis in chil- 2005;122:120-6.
dren. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;133:32-7. 167. Mirza S, Lobo CJ, Counter P, Farrington WT. Lacrimal gland
145. Wenig BL, Goldstein MN, Abramson AL. Frontal sinusitis and abscess: an unusual complication of rhinosinusitis. ORL J
its intracranial complications. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. Otorhi- nolaryngol Relat Spec. 2001;63:379-81.
1983;5:285-302. 168. Patel N, Khalil HM, Amirfeyz R, Kaddour HS. Lacrimal gland
146. Younis RT, Lazar RH, Anand VK. Intracranial complications of abscesso complicating acute sinusitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhi-
sinusitis: a 15-year review of 39 cases. Ear, Nose, & Throat J. nolaryngol. 2003;67:917-9.
2002;81:636-8, 40-2, 44. 169. Parvizi N, Choudhury N, Singh A. Complicated periorbital
147. Park HW, Lee BJ, Chung YS. Orbital subperiosteal hematoma cellulitis: case report and literature review. J Laryngol Otol.
associated with sinus infection. Rhinology. 2010;48:117-22. 2012;126:94-6.
148. Zimmermann AP, Eivazi B, Wiegand S, Werner JA, Teymoortash 170. Pang KP, Sethi DS. Nasal septal abscess: an unusual
A. Orbital lymphatic malformation showing the symptoms of complication of acute spheno-ethmoiditis. J Laryngol Otol.
orbital complications of acute rhinosinusitis in children: a re-
2002;116:543-5.
port of 2 cases. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73:1480-
171. Siberry GK, Costarangos C, Cohen BA. Destruction of the nasal
3.
septum by aspergillus infection after autologous bone marrow
149. Gavriel H, Yeheskeli E, Aviram E, Yehoshua L, Eviatar E. Di-
transplantation. New England J Medicine. 1997;337:275-6.
mension of subperiosteal orbital abscess as an indication for
172. Wu VF, Smith TL, Poetker DM. Sinocutaneous fistula secondary
surgical management in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg. 2011;145:823-7. to chronic frontal rhinosinusitis: case series and literature re-
150. Ketenci I, Unlü Y, Vural A, Doğan H, Sahin MI, Tuncer E. Ap- view. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008;117:759-63.
proaches to subperiosteal orbital abscesses. Eur Arch Otorhi- 173. Laurens MB, Becker RM, Johnson JK, Wolf JS, Kotloff KL.
nolaryngol. 2013;270:1317-27. MRSA with progression from otitis media and sphenoid
151. Bedwell J, Bauman NM. Management of pediatric orbital cel- sinusites to clival osteomyelitis, pachymeningitis and
lulitis and abscess. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. abducens nerve palsy in an immunocompetent 10-year-old
2011;19:467-73. patient. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72:945-51.
152. Siedek V, Kremer A, Betz CS, Tschiesner U, Berghaus A, Leunig 174. Rimal D, Hashmi SM, Prinsley PR. An unusual presentation of
A. Management of orbital complications due to rhinosinusitis. sphenoid sinusites with septicaemia in a healthy young adult.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267:1881-6. Emerg Med J. 2006;23:e36.
153. Hoxworth JM, Glastonbury CM. Orbital and intracranial 175. Righini CA, Bing F, Bessou P, Boubagra K, Reyt E. An acute is-
complications of acute sinusitis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. chemic stroke secondary to sphenoid sinusitis. Ear, Nose, &
2010;20:511-26. Throat J. 2009;88:E23-8.
154. Albu S, Tomescu E, Bassam S, Merca Z. Albu S, Tomescu E, et 176. Hoffman RA, Parisier SC, Roland JT Jr. In reference to Orbital
al. Intracranial complications of sinusitis. Acta sequelae of rhinosinusitis after cochlear implantation in chil-
Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 2001;55:265-72. 445. dren. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1505.
155. Gavriel H, Kessler A, Eviatar E. Management implications of 177. Rudnick EF, Chu MW, Sismanis A, Dodson KM, Mitchell RB. Or-
diagnosing orbital abscess as subperiosteal orbital abscess. bital sequelae of rhinosinusitis after cochlear implantation in
Rhinology. 2010;48:90-4. children. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:1368-71.
156. Komatsu H, Matsumoto F, Kasai M, Kurano K, Sasaki D, Ikeda 178. Bhattacharyya N. Contemporary assessment of the disease
K. Cavernous sinus thrombosis caused by contralateral burden of sinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23:392-5.
sphenoid sinusitis: a case report. Head Face Med. 2013;9:9. 179. Anand VK. Epidemiology and economic impact of rhinosinusi-
157. DelGaudio JM, Evans SH, Sobol SE, Parikh SL. Intracranial tis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2004;193:3-5. Review.
complications of sinusitis: what is the role of endoscopic 180. Bhattacharyya N, Orlandi RR, Grebner J, Martinson M. Cost
sinus surgery in the acute setting. Am J Otolaryngol. Burden of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: a Claims-Based Study. Oto-
2010;31:25-8. laryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:440-5.
158. Giannoni CM, Stewart MG, Alford EL. Intracranial complica-
181. Ray NF, Baraniuk JN, Thamer M, Rinehart CS, Gergen PJ, Ka-
tions of sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:863-7.
liner M, et al. Healthcare expenditures for sinusitis in 1996:
159. Kombogiorgas D, Seth R, Athwal R, Modha J, Singh J. Suppu-
contributions of asthma, rhinitis, and other airway disorders.
rative intracranial complications of sinusitis in adolescence.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:408-14.
Single institute experience and review of literature. Br J Neu-
182. Bhattacharyya N. Incremental Health Care Utilization and Ex-
rosurg. 2007;21:603-9.
160. Deutschmann MW, Livingstone D, Cho JJ, Vanderkooi OG, penditures for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in the United States.
Brookes JT. The significance of Streptococcus anginosus group Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120:423-7.
in intracranial complications of pediatric rhinosinusitis. JAMA 183. Bhattacharyya N. The economic burden and symptom
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139:157-60. manifestations of chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol.
2003;17:27-32.
184. Durr DG, Desrosiers MY, Dassa C. Impact of rhinosinusitis in
205. Orlandi RR, Marple BF, Georgelas A, Durtschi D, Barr L. Immu-
health care delivery: the Quebec experience. J Otolaryngol.
nologic response to fungus is not universally associated with
2001;30:93-7.
rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:750-6.
185. Bezerra TF, Piccirillo JF, Fornazieri MA, de M Pilan RR, Abdo
206. Douglas R, Bruhn M, Tan LW, Ooi E, Psaltis A, Wormald PJ. Re-
TR, de Rezende Pinna F, et al. Cross-Cultural Adaptation
sponse of peripheral blood lymphocytes to fungal extracts and
and Validation of SNOT-20 in Portuguese. Int J Otolaryngol.
staphylococcal superantigen B in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryn-
2011;2011:306529.
186. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health goscope. 2007;117:411-4.
survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. 207. Kennedy DW, Kuhn FA, Hamilos DL, Zinreich SJ, Butler D,
Med Care. 1992;30:473-83. Warsi G, et al. Treatment of chronicrhinosinusitiswith high-
187. Gliklich RE, Metson R. The health impact of chronic sinusitis dose oral terbinafine: a double blind, placebo-controlled
in patients seeking otolaryngologic care. Otolaryngol Head study. Laryngo- scope. 2005;115:1793-9.
Neck Surg. 1995;113:104-9. 208. Weschta M, Rimek D, Formanek M, Podbielski A, Riechelmann
188. Fokkens W, Lund V, Mullol J, European Position Paper on Rhi- H. Effect of nasal antifungal therapy on nasal cell activation
nosinusitis and Nasal Polyps group. European position paper markers in chronic rhinosinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2007. Rhinol Suppl. 2007:1- Surg. 2006;132:743-7.
136. 209. Helbling A, Baumann A, Hänni C, Caversaccio M. Amphotericin
189. Pleis JR, Ward BW, Lucas JW. Summary health statistics for B nasal spray has no effect on nasal polyps. J Laryngol Otol.
U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009. Vital 2006;120:1023-5.
Health Stat 10. 2010:1-207. 210. Liang KL, Su MC, Shiao JY, Tseng HC, Hsin CH, Lin JF, et al.
190. Chen Y, Dales R, Lin M. The epidemiology of chronic Am- photericin B irrigation for the treatment of
rhinosinusitis in Canadians. Laryngoscope. 2003; 113:1199- chronicrhinosinusi- tiswithout nasal polyps: a randomized,
205. placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Am J Rhinol
191. Kim YS, Kim NH, Seong SY, Kim KR, Lee G-B, Kim K-S. Preva- 2008;22:52-8.
lence and risk factors of chronic rhinosinusitis in Korea. Am J 211. Ebbens FA, Scadding GK, Badia L, Hellings PW, Jorissen M,
Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:117-21. Mullol J, et al. Amphotericin B nasal lavages: not a solution
192. Hastan D, Fokkens WJ, Bachert C, Newson RB, Bislimovs- for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin
ka J, Bockelbrink A et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis in Europe Immunol. 2006;118:1149-56.
- an underestimated disease. A GA(2)LEN study. Allergy. 212. Ebbens FA, Georgalas C, Luiten S, van Drunen CM, Badia L,
2011;66:1216-23. Scadding GK, et al. The effect of topical amphotericin B on
193. Tomassen P, Newson RB, Hoffmans R, Lotvall J, Cardell LO, inflammatory markers in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis:
Gunnbjornsdottir M et al. Reliability of EP3OS symptom a multicenter randomized controlled study. Laryngoscope.
criteria and nasal endoscopy in the assessment of chronic 2009;119:401-8.
rhinosinusitis 213. Isaacs S, Fakhri S, Luong A, Citardi MJ. A meta-analysis of
- a GA2LEN study. Allergy. 2011;66:556-61. topical amphotericin B for the treatment of chronic
194. Pilan RR, Pinna FR, Bezerra TF, Mori RL, Padua FG, Bento RF, rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011:250-4.
et al. Prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis in Sao Paulo. 214. Ramanathan Jr M, Lee WK, Lane AP. Increased expression of
Rhinology. 2012;50:129-38. acidic mammalian chitinase in chronic rhinosinusitis with
195. Wood AJ, Antoszewska H, Fraser J, Douglas RG. Is chronic rhi- nasal polyps.Am J Rhinol 2006; 20:330-5.
nosinusitis caused by persistent respiratory virus infection? Int 215. Kauffman HF. Innateimmune responses to environmental
Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1:95-100. aller- gens. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2006;30:129-40.
196. Cho GS, Moon BJ, Lee BJ, Gong CH, Kim NH, Kim YS, et al. 216. Fokkens WJ, Ebbens F, van Drunen CM. Fungus: a role in
High rates of detection of respiratory viruses in the nasal pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis, disease modifier, a
washes and mucosae of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J treatment target, or no role at all? Immunol Allergy Clin
Clin Mi- crobiol. 2013;51:979-84. North Am. 2009;29:677-88.
197. Lima Jr JT. Prevalência e sazonalidade dos vírus respiratórios 217. Araujo E, Palombini BC, Cantarelli V, Pereira A, Mariante A.
na rinossinusite crônica com e sem pólipos nasais e sua in- Microbiology of middle meatus in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J
fluência na celularidade da mucosa e dos pólipos nasais. 88p. Rhinol. 2003;17:9-15.
Tese de Doutorado. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto. 218. Mantovani K, Bisanha AA, Demarco RC, Tamashiro E, Mar-
Universidade de São Paulo. 2013. tinez R, Anselmo-Lima WT. Maxillary sinuses microbiology
198. Gungor AA. On chronic rhinosinusitis and the prevalence of from patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Braz J Otorhinol.
fungal sinus disease: problems of diagnostic accuracy and a 2010;76:548-51.
proposed classification of chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Otolar- 219. Doyle PW, Woodham JD. Evaluation of the microbiology of
yngol. 2012;33:543-8. chronic ehtmoid sinusitis. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29:2396-400.
199. de Shazo RD, Chapin K, Swain RE. Fungal sinusitis. N Engl J 220. Jiang RS, Lin JF, Hsu CY. Correlations between bacteriology
Med. 1997;337:254-9. of the middle meatus and ethmoid sinus in chronic sinusitis. J
200. Ponikau JU, Sherris DA, Kern EB, Homburger HA, Frigas E, Laryngol Otol. 2002;116:443-6.
Gaffey TA, et al. The diagnosis and incidence of allergic 221. Kim HJ, Lee K, Yoo JB, Song JW, Yoon HJ. Bacteriological find-
fungal sinusitis. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:877-84. ings and antimicrobial susceptibility in chronic sinusitis with
201. Shin SH, Ponikau JU, Sherris DA, Congdon D, Frigas E, Hom- nasal polyp. Acta Otolaryngol 2006;126:489-97.
burger HA, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis: an enhanced immune 222. Brook I. Microbiology of sinusitis. Proc Am Thor Soc.
response to ubiquitous airborne fungi. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;8:90- 100.
2004;114:1369-75. 223. Boase S, Foreman A, Cleland E, Tan L, Melton-Kreft R, Pant H,
202. Inoue Y, Matsuwaki Y, Shin SH, Ponikau JU, Kita H. Nonpatho- et al. The microbiome of chronic rhinosinusitis: culture, mo-
genic, environmental fungi induce activation and degranula- lecular diagnostics and biofilm detection. BMC Infectious Dis-
tion of human eosinophils. J Immunol. 2005;175:5439-47.
eases. 2013;13:210-8.
203. Wei JL, Kita H, Sherris DA, Kern EB, Weaver A, Ponikau JU.
224. Stressmann FA, Rogers GB, Chan SW, Howarth PH, Harries PG,
The chemotactic behavior of eosinophils in patients with
Bruce KD, et al. Characterization of bacterial community
chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:303-6.
diversity in chronic rhinosinusitis infections using novel
204. Braun H, Buzina W, Freudenschuss K, Beham A, Stammberger
culture-independent techniques. Am J Rhinol Allergy.
H. Eosinophilic fungal rhinosinusitis: a common disorder in Eu-
2011;25:e133-40.
rope? Laryngoscope. 2003;113:264-9.
225. Stephenson MF, Mfuna L, Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Barbeau J,
243. Tamashiro E, Antunes MB, Palmer JN, Cohen NA, Anselmo-
Pois- son M, et al. Molecular characterization of
Lima WT. Implications of bacterial biofilms in chronic
thepolymicrobial flora in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol
rhinosinusitis. Braz J Infect Dis. 2009;13:232-5.
Head NeckSurg. 2010;39:182-7.
244. Foreman A, Psaltis AJ, Tan LW, Wormald PJ. Characterization
226. Abreu NA, Nagalingam NA, Song Y, Roediger FC, Pletcher SD, of bacterial and fungal biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J
Goldberg NA, et al. Sinus microbiome diversity depletion and Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23:556-61.
corynebacteriumtuberculostearicum enrichment meadiates 245. Psaltis AJ, Weitzel EK, Ha KR, Wormald PJ. The effect of bac-
rhinosinusitis. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:151ra124. terialbiofilms on post-sinussurgicaloutcomes. Am J Rhinol.
227. Larson DA, Han JK. Microbiology of sinusitis: does allergy or 2008;22:1-6.
endoscopic sinus surgery affect the microbiologic flora? Curr 246. Bendouah Z, Barbeau J, Hamad WA, Desrosiers M. Biofilm for-
Op Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;19:199-203. mation by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas
228. Ba L, Zhang N, Meng J, Zhang J, Lin P, Zhoug P, et al. The aeruginosa is associated with an unfavorable evolution after
association between bacterial colonization and inflammatory surgery for chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis. Otolaryngol
pattern in Chinese chronic rhinosinusitis patients with nasal Head Neck Surg. 2006;134:991-6.
polyps. Allergy. 2011;66:1296-303. 247. Foreman A, Wormald PJ. Different biofilms, different disease?
229. Hwang PH. Staph aureus has long been recognized as being A clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:1701-6.
more prevalent in cultures from patients with chronic rhinosi- 248. Singhal D, Foreman A, Jervis-Bardy J, Wormald PJ. Staphylo-
nusitis (CRS) compared to those with acute rhinosinusitis. Int coccus aureus biofilms: Nemesis of endoscopic sinus surgery.
Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:81-2. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:1578-83.
230. Guven M, Karabay O, Akidil O, Yilmaz MS, Yildirim M. 249. Zhang Z, Linkin DR, Finkelman BS, O’Malley BW Jr, Thaler ER,
Detection of staphylococcal exotoxins in antrochoanal polyps Doghramji L, et al. Asthma and biofilm-forming bacteria are
and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Otolaryngol Head in- dependently associated with revision sinus surgeries for
Neck Surg. 2013;148:302-7. chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128:221-
231. Wang M, Shi P, Yue Z, Chen B, Zhang H, Zhang D, et al. Su- 223.
perantigens and the expression of T-cell receptor repertoire 250. Hekiert AM, Kofonow JM, Doghramji L, Kennedy DW, Chiu AG,
in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Acta Otolaryngol. Palmer JN, et al. Biofilms correlate with TH1 inflammation in
2008;128:901-8. the sinonasal tissue of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
232. Conley DB, Tripathi A, Seiberling KA, Schleimer RP, Suh LA, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:448-53.
Har- ris K, et al. Superantigens and chronic rhinosinusitis: 251. Foreman A, Holtappels G, Psaltis AJ, Jervis-Bardy J, Field J,
Wormald PJ, et al. Adaptive immune responses in
skewing of T-cell receptor V beta-distributions in polyp-
Staphylococ- cus aureus biofilm-associated chronic
derived CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. RC. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20:534-
rhinosinusitis. Allergy. 2011;66:1449-56.
9.
252. Arjomandi H, Gilde J, Zhu S, Delaney S, Hochstim C, Mazhar
233. Gevaert P, Nouri-Aria KT, Wu H, Harper CE, Takhar P, Fear DJ,
K, et al. Relationship of eosinophils and plasma cells to
et al. Local receptor revision and class switching to IgE in
biofilm in chronic rhinosinusitis.Am J Rhinol Allergy.
chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Allergy. 2013;68:55-
2013;27:e85-90.
63. 253. Karosi T, Csomor P, Hegyi Z, Sziklai I. The presence of CD209
234. Cho KS, Kim CS, Lee HS, Seo SK, Park HY, Roh HJ. Role of in- expressingdendriticcells correlates withbiofilmpositivity in
terferon-γ-producing t cells in the pathogenesis of chronic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Eur Arch Otorhi-
rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps associated with nolaryngol. 2013;270:2455-63.
staphylococcal superantigen. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 254. Sun Y, Zhou B, Wang C, Huang Q, Zhang Q, Han Y, et al.
2010;39:600-5. Biofilm formation and Toll-like receptor 2, Toll-like receptor
235. Seiberling KA, Conley DB, Tripathi A, Grammer LC, Shuh L, 4, and NF-kappaB expression in sinus tissues of patients with
Haines GK 3rd, et al. Superantigens and chronic chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:104-9.
rhinosinusitis: detection of staphylococcal exotoxins in nasal 255. Plouin-Gaudon I, Clement S, Huggler E, Chaponnier C,
polyps. Laryngo- scope. 2005;115:1580-5. François P, Lew D, et al. Intracellular residency is frequently
236. Bernstein JM, Ballow M, Schlievert PM, Rich G, Allen C, Dryja associated with recurrent Staphylococcus aureus
D. A superantigen hypothesis for the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology. 2006;44:249-54.
hyperplastic sinusitis with massive nasal polyposis. Am J Rhi- 256. Tan NC, Tran HB, Foreman A, Jardeleza C, Vreugde S,
nol. 2003;17:321-6. Wormald PJ. Identifying intracellular Staphylococcus aureus
237. Kowalski ML, Cieslak M, Perez-Novo CA, Makowska J, Bachert in chronic rhinosinusitis: a direct comparison of techniques.
C. Clinical and immunological determinants of severe⁄refrac- Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:444-9.
tory asthma (SRA): association with Staphylococcal superanti- 257. Wood AJ, Fraser JD, Swift S, Patterson-Emanuelson EA,
gen - specific IgE antibodies. Allergy. 2011;66:32-8. Amirapu S, Douglas RG. Intramucosal bacterial microcolonies
238. Bachert C, Van Steen K, Zhang N, Holtapples G, Cattaert T, exist in chronic rhinosinusitis without inducing a local immune
Maus B, et al. Specific IgE against Staphylococcus aureus response. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26;265-70.
enterotoxins: an independent risk factor for asthma. J 258. Tan NC, Foreman A, Jardeleza C, Douglas R, Tran H, Wormald
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:376-81. PJ. The multiplicity of Staphylococcus aureus in chronic rhi-
239. Heymans F, Fischer A, Stow NW, Girard M, Vourexakis Z, Des nosinusitis: correlating surface biofilm and intracellular resi-
Courtis A, et al. Screening for dence. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1655-600.
staphylococcalsuperantigengenes shows no correlation with 259. Askarian F, Sangvik M, Hanssen AM, Snipen L, Sollid JU, Johan-
nessen M. Staphylococcus aureus nasal isolates from healthy
the presence or the severity of chronic rhinosinusitis
individuals cause highly variable host cell responses in vitro:
andnasalpolyposis. PLoSOne. 2010;5:e9525.
The Tromsø Staphand Skin Study. Pathog Dis. 2014;70:158-66.
240. Corriveau MN, Zhang N, Bachert C. The presence of Staphy-
260. Akdis CA, Bachert C, Cingi C, Dykewicz MS, Hellings PW, Na-
lococcus aureus is notequivalent to animmune reaction to its
clerio RM, et al. Endotypes and phenotypes of chronic rhi-
enterotoxins. Allergy. 2009;64:959-60.
nosinusitis: a PRACTALL document of the European Academy
241. Cohen M, Kofonow J, Nayak JV,Palmer JN, Chiu AG, Leid JG, of Allergy and clinical immunology and the American Acade-
et al. Biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis: a review. Am J Rhinol my of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
Allergy. 2009;23:255-60. 2013;131:1479-90.
242. Bezerra TF, Padua FG, Gebrim EM, Saldiva PH, Voegels RL. Bi- 261. Van Bruaene N, Bachert C. Tissue remodeling in chronic rhi-
ofilmsin chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Otolaryngol nosinusitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11:8-11.
Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:612-6.
262. Van Drunen CM, Mjösberg JM, Segboer CL, Cornet ME, Fokkens
282. Chin D, Harvey RJ. Nasal polyposis: an inflammatory condition
WJ. Role of innate immunity in the pathogenesis of chronic
requiring effective anti-inflammatory treatment. Curr Opin
rhinosinusitis: progress and new avenues. Curr Allergy Asthma
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;21:23-30.
Rep. 2012;12:120-6.
283. Calus L, Van Zele T, Derycke L, Krysko O, Dutre T, Tomassen P,
263. Li C, Shi L, Yan Y, Gordon BR, Gordon WM, Wang DY. Gene
et al. Local inflammation in chronic upper airway disease.
expression signatures: a new approach to understanding the
Curr Pharmac Design. 2012;18:2336-46.
pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Allergy Asthma
284. Reh DD, Wang Y, Ramanathan M Jr, Lane AP. Treatment-recal-
Rep. 2013;13:209-17.
citrant chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps is associated with al-
264. Tieu DD, Kern RC, Schleimer RP. Alterations in epithelial
tered epithelial cell expression of interleukin-33. Am J Rhinol
barrier function and host defense responses in chronic
Allergy. 2010;24:105-9.
rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:37-42.
285. Wang YH, Angkasekwinai P, Lu N, Voo KS, Arima K, Hanabuchi
265. Schleimer RP, Kato A, Peters A, Conley D, Kim J, Liu MC, et
S, et al. IL-25 augments type 2 immune responses by
al. Epithelium, inflammation, and immunity in the upper
enhancing the expansion and functions of TSLP-DC-activated
airways of humans studies in chronic rhinosinusitis. Proc Am
Th2 memory cells. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1837-47.
Thorac Soc. 2009;6:288-94.
286. Koyasu S, Moro K. Innate Th2-type immune responses and the
266. Kern RC, Conley DB, Walsh W, Chandra R, Kato A, Tripathi-
natural helper cell, a newly identified lymphocyte
Peters A, et al. Perspectives on the etiology of chronic
population. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11:109-14.
rhinosinusitis: an immune barrier hypothesis. Am J Rhinol.
287. Figueiredo CR, Silva IDCG, Weckx LLM. Inflammatory genes
2008;22:549-59.
in nasal polyposis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
267. Psaltis AJ, Bruhn MA, Ooi EH, Tan LW, Wormald PJ. Nasal
2008;16:18-21.
mucosa expression of lactoferrin in patients with chronic
288. Cavallari FE, Valera FC, Gallego AJ, Malinsky RR, Küpper DS,
rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:2030-5.
Milanezi C, et al. Expression of RANTES, eotaxin-2, ICAM-1,
268. Tewfik MA, Latterich M, Di Falco MR, Samaha M. Proteom-
LFA-1 and CCR-3 in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with nasal
ics of nasal mucus in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol.
polyposis. Acta Cir Bras. 2012;27:645-9.
2007;21:680-5.
289. de Castro MC, Rocha-Silva F, Gomes LI, Zauli DA, de Moraes
269. Soyka MB, Wawrzyniak P, Eiwegger T, Holzmann D, Treis A,
Mourão M, et al. Impact of mitomycin C on the mRNA expres-
Wanke K, et al. Defective epithelial barrier in chronic rhinosi-
sion signatures of immunological biomarkers in eosinophilic
nusitis: the regulation of tight junctions by IFN-gamma and
nasal polyposis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2013;27:e32-e41.
IL-4. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:1087-96.e10.
290. Otto BA, Wenzel SE. The role of cytokines in chronic rhinosi-
270. Kast JI, Wanke K, Soyka MB, Wawrzyniak P, Akdis D, Kingo K,
nusitis with nasal polyps. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck
et al. The broad spectrum of interepithelial junctions in skin
Surg. 2008;16:270-4.
and lung. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:544-7.e4.
291. Valera FCP, Queiroz R, Scrideli C, Tone LG, Anselmo-Lima WT.
271. Dong Z, Yang Z, Wang C. Expression of TLR2 and TLR4 messen-
Evaluating budesonide efficacy in nasal polyposis and
ger RNA in the epithelial cells of the nasal airway. Am J
predicting the resistance to treatment. Clin Exper Allergy.
Rhinol Allergy. 2005;19:236-9.
2009;39:81-8.
272. Lane AP, Truong-Tran QA, Schleimer RP. Altered expression of
292. Huvenne W, van Bruaene N, Zhang N, van Zele T, Patou J,
genes associated with innate immunity and inflammation in
Gevaert P, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis with and without na-
recalcitrant rhinosinusitis with polyps. Am J Rhinol Allergy.
sal polyps: what is the difference? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep.
2006;20:138-44.
2009;9:213-20.
273. Ramanathan Jr M, Lee WK, Dubin MG, Lin S, Spannhake EW,
293. Voegels RL, de Melo Pádua FG. Expression of interleukins in
Lane AP. Sinonasal epithelial cell expression of toll-like recep-
patients with nasal polyposis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
tor 9 is decreased in chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps. Am J
2005;132:613-6.
Rhinol. 2007;21:110-6.
294. Bulek K, Swaidani S, Aronica M, Li X. Epithelium: the inter-
274. Casanova JL, Abel L, Quintana-Murci L. Human TLRs and IL-
play between innate and Th2 immunity. Immunol Cell Biol.
1Rs in host defense: natural insights from evolutionary,
2010;88:257-68.
epidemiological and clinical genetics. Ann Rev Immunol.
295. Bachert C, Zhang N, Holtappels G, De Lobel L, van Cauwen-
2011;29:447- 91.
berge P, Liu S, et al. Presence of IL-5 protein and IgE an-
275. Tesse R, Pandey C, Kabesch M. Genetic variations in toll-like
tibodies to staphylococcal enterotoxins in nasal polyps is
receptor pathway genes influence asthma and atopy. Allergy.
associated with comorbid asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2011;66:307-16.
2010;126:962-8, e1-6.
276. Iwamura C, Nakayama T. Toll-like receptors in the respiratory
296. Pezato R, Świerczyńska-Krępa M, Niżankowska-Mogilnicka E,
system: their roles in inflammation. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep.
Derycke L, Bachert C, Pérez-Novo CA. Role of imbalance of
2008;8:7-13.
eicosanoid pathways and staphylococcal superantigens in
277. Kim YK, Oh SY, Jeon SG, Park HW, Lee SY, Chun EY, et al.
chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy. 2012;67:1347-56.
Airway exposure levels of lipopolysaccharide determine type
297. Bassiouni A, Chen PG, Wormald PJ. Mucosal remodeling and
1 versus type 2 experimental asthma. J Immunol.
reversibility in chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin
2007;178:5375-82.
Im- munol. 2013;13:4-12.
298. Zhang N, Van Zele T, Perez-Novo C, Van Bruaene N, Holtappels
Expression of transcription factors NF-κB and AP-1 in nasal
G, DeRuyck N, et al. Different types of T-effector cells
polyposis. Clin Exper Allergy. 2008;38:579-85.
orches- trate mucosal inflammation in chronic sinus disease. J
279. Takeno S, Hirakawa K, Ueda T, Furukido K, Ossada R, Yajin K.
Nuclear factor-kappa B activation in the nasal polyp epitheli-
299. Kim YM, Munoz A, Hwang PH, Nadeau KC. Migration of reg-
um: relationship to local cytokine gene expression. Laryngo-
ulatory T cells toward airway epithelial cells is impaired in
scope. 2002;112:53-8.
chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Clin Immunol.
280. Necela BM, Cidlowski JA. Mechanisms of glucocorticoid recep-
2010;137:111-21.
tor action in noninflammatory and inflammatory cells. Proc
300. Van Bruaene N, Derycke L, Perez-Novo CA, Gevaert P, Holtap-
Am Thorac Soc. 2004;1:239-46.
pels G, De Ruyck N, et al. TGF-b signaling and collagen dep-
osition in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
NF-kappa expression predicts clinical outcome for nasal poly-
2009;124:253-9.e2.
posis. Rhinology. 2010;48:408-41.
301. Balsalobre L, Pezato R, Perez-Novo C, Alves MT, Santos RP,
322. Irving RM, McMahon R, Clark R, Jones NS. Cystic fibrosis trans-
Bachert C, et al. Epithelium and stroma from nasal polyp
membrane conductance regulator gene mutations in severe
mucosa exhibits inverse expression of TGF-β1 as compared
with healthy nasal mucosa. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. nasal polyposis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1997;22:519-21.
2013;42:29. 323. Raman V, Clary R, Siegrist KL, Zehnbauer B, Chatila TA. In-
302. Malinsky RR, Valera FC, Cavallari FE, Küpper DS, Milaneze C, creased prevalence of mutations in the cystic fibrosis trans-
Silva JS, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases and their impact on membrane conductance regulator in children with chronic
sinusal extension in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. rhinosinusitis. Pediatrics. 2002;109:E13.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270:1345-8. 324. Wang X, Kim J, McWilliams R, Cutting GR. Increased preva-
303. Watelet JB, Bachert C, Claeys C, Van Cauwenberge P. Matrix lence of chronic rhinosinusitis in carriers of a cystic fibrosis
metallo-proteinases MMP-7, MMP-9 and their tissue inhibitor mutation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131:237-40.
TIMP-1: expression in chronic sinusitis vs nasal polyposis. 325. Wang X, Moylan B, Leopold DA, Kim J, Rubenstein RC, Togias
Aller- gy. 2004;59:54-60. A, et al. Mutation in the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis
304. Hsu J, Avila PC, Kern RC, Hayes G, Schleimer RP, Pinto JM. and predisposition to chronic rhinosinusitis in the general
Ge- netics of chronic rhinosinusitis: state of the field and population. JAMA. 2000;284:1814-9.
directions forward. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131:977-93. 326. Sachse F, Becker K, Rudack C. Incidence of staphylococcal
305. van Drunen CM, Vroling AB, Rinia AB, Fokkens WJ. Consider- colonization and of the 753Q Toll-like receptor 2 variant in
ations on the application of microarray analysis in rhinology. nasal polyposis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24:e10-3.
Rhinology. 2008;46:259-66. 327. Park CS, Cho JH, Park YJ. Toll-like receptor 2 gene polymor-
306. Mfuna-Endam L, Zhang Y, Desrosiers MY. Genetics of phisms in a Korean population: association with chronic rhi-
rhinosinusitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011;11:236-46. nosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:96-100.
307. Pinto JM, Hayes MG, Schneider D, Naclerio RM, Ober C. A ge- 328. Lee RJ, Xiong G, Kofonow JM, Chen B, Lysenko A, Juang P, et
nomewide screen for chronic rhinosinusitis genes identifies a al. T2R38 taste receptor polymorphism underlie susceptibility
locus on chromosome 7q. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2067-72. to upper respiratory infection. J Clin Invest. 2012;122:4145-
308. Bossé Y, Bacot F, Montpetit A, Rung J, Qu HQ, Engert JC, et 59.
al. Identification of susceptibility genes for complex diseases 329. Yazdani N, Amoli MM, Naraghi M, Mersaghian A, Firouzi F,
using pooling-based genome-wide association scans. Hum Sayyahpour F, et al. Association between the functional poly-
Genet. 2009;125:305-18. morphism C-159T in the CD14 promoter gene and nasal
309. Tournas A, Mfuna L, Bossé Y, Filali-Mouhim A, Gregnier JP, polyposis: potential role in asthma. J Investig Allergol Clin
Des- rosiers M. A pooling-based genome-wide association Immunol. 2012;22:406-11.
study im- plicates the p73 gene in chronic rhinosinusitis. J
330. Zhang Y, Endam LM, Filali-Mouhim A, Boussé Y, Castano R,
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;39:188-95.
Des- rosiers M. Polymorphisms in the nitric oxide synthase 1
310. Grüneberg H. The inheritance of a disease of the accessory
gene are associated with severe chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J
nasal cavities. J Genet. 1934;29:367-74.
Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:e49-54.
311. Cohen NA, Widelitz JS, Chiu AG, Palmer JN, Kennedy DW. Fa-
milial aggregation of sinonasal polyps correlates with severity 331. Pascual M, Sanz C, Isidoro-Garcia M, Dávila I, Moreno E, Laf-
of disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134:601-4. fond E, et al. (CCTTT)n polymorphism of NOS2A in nasal poly-
312. Lockey RF, Rucknagel DL, Vanselow NA. Familial occurrence of posis and asthma: a case-control study. J Investig Allergol Clin
asthma, nasal polyps and aspirin intolerance. Ann Inter Med. Immunol. 2008;18:239-44.
1973;78:57-63. 332. Yea SS, Yang YI, Park SK, Jang WH, Lee SS, Seog DH, et al.
313. Greisner WA 3rd, Settipane GA. Hereditary factor for nasal Interleukin-4 C-590T polymorphism is associated with protec-
polyps. Allergy Asthma Proc. 1996;17:283-6. tion against nasal polyps in a Korean population. Am J Rhinol.
314. Delagrand A, Gilbert-Dussardier B, Burg S, Allano G, Gohler- 2006;20:550-3.
Des- monts C, Lebreton JP, et al. Nasal polyposis: is there an 333. Kosugi EM, de Camargo-Kosugi CM, Weckx LL, Guerreiro-da-
inheritance pattern? A single family study. Rhinology. Sil- va ID, Gregório LC. Interleukin-6 -174 G/C promoter
2008;46:125- 30. polymorphism and nasal polyposis. Rhinology. 2009;47:400-
315. Drake-Lee A. Nasal polyps in identical twins. J Laryngol Otol. 4.
1992;106:1084-5. 334. Kosugi EM, de Camargo-Kosugi CM, Hirai ER, Mendes-Neto JA,
316. Takeushi K, Majima Y, Shimizu T, Ukai K, Sakakura Y. Analysis Gregório LC, Guerreiro-da-Silva ID, et al. Interleukin-6 -174
of HLA antigens in Japanese patients with chronic sinusitis. G/C promoter gene polymorphism in nasal polyposis and asth-
Laryngoscope. 1999;109:275-8. ma. Rhinology. 2013;51:70-6.
317. Luxemberger W, Posch U, Berghold A, Hoffmann T, Lang-Loi- 335. Palikhe NS, Kim SH, Cho BY, Choi GS, Kim JH, Ye YM, et al. IL-
dolt D. HLA patterns in patients with nasal polyposis. Eur 13 gene polymorphisms are associated with rhinosinusitis and
Aech Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;257:137-9. eosinophilic inflammation in aspirin intolerant asthma.
318. Keles B, Cora T, Acar H, Arbag H, Inan Z, Ozturk K, et al. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2010;2:134-40.
Eval- uation of HLA-A, -B, -Cw, and -DRB1 alleles frequency in 336. Buysschaert ID, Grulois V, Eloy P, Jorissen M, Rombaux P, Ber-
Turk- ish patients with nasal polyposis. Otolaryngol Head Neck trand B, et al. Genetic evidence for a role of IL33 in nasal
Surg. 2008;139:580-5. polyposis. Allergy. 2010;65:616-22.
319. Ramírez-Anguiano J, Yamamoto-Furuho JK, Barquera R, Bel- 337. Wang LF, Chien CY, Tai CF, Kuo WR, Hsi E, Juo SH. Matrix met-
trán O, Granados J. Association of HLA-DR3 and HLA-DR4 with alloproteinase-9 gene polymorphisms in nasal polyposis. BMC
sinonasal polyposis in Mexican Mestizos. Otolaryngol Head Med Genet. 2010;11:85.
Neck Surg. 2006;135:90-3.
338. Erbek SS, Yurtcu E, Erbek S, Sahin FI. Matrix metalloprotein-
320. Zhai L, Sun Y, Tang L, Liu H. Polymorphism between loci for
ase-9 promoter gene polymorphism (-1562C>T) in nasal poly-
human leukocyte antigens DR and DQ in patients with nasal
posis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23:568-70.
polyps. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116:66-8.
339. Kim SH, Park HS, Holloway JW, Shin HD, Park CS. Association
321. Sakano E, Ribeiro AF, Barth L, Condino Neto A, Ribeiro JD. Na-
between a TGFbeta1 promoter polymorphism and rhinosi-
sal and paranasal sinus endoscopy, computed tomography and
microbiology of upper airways and the correlations with geno- nusitis in aspirin–intolerant asthmatic patients. Respir Med.
type and severity of cystic fibrosis. Int J Pediatr 2007;101:490-5.
Otorhinolaryn- gol. 2007;71:41-50. 340. Kim SH, Yang EM, Lee HN, Cho BY, Ye YM, Park HS. Combined
effect of IL-10 and TGF–beta1 promoter polymorphism as a
risk factor for aspirin–intolerant asthma and rhinosinusitis.
Allergy. 2009;64:1221-5.
341. de Alarcon A, Steinke JW, Caughey R, Barekzi E, Hise K, Gross
363. Arbex MA1, Martins LC, de Oliveira RC, Pereira LA, Arbex FF,
CW, et al. Expression of leukotriene C4 synthase and
Cançado JE, et al. Air pollution from biomass burning and
plasmino- gen activator inhibitor 1 gene promoter
asthma hospital admissions in a sugar cane plantation area
polymorphisms in sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20:545-9.
in Bra- zil. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61:395-400.
342. Benito Pescador D, Isidoro-Garcia M, Garcia-Solaesa V,
364. Graudenz GS, Oliveira CH, Tribess A, Mendes C Jr., Latorre
Pascual de Pedro M, Sanz C, Hernandez-Hernandez L, et al.
MR, Kalil J. Association of air-conditioning with respiratory
Genetic association study in nasal polyposis. J Investig
symptoms in office workers in tropical climate. Indoor Air.
Allergol Clin Im- munol. 2012;22:331-40.
2005;15:62-6.
343. Zhang Y, Endam LM, Filali-Mouhim A, Zhao L, Desrosiers M,
365. Fadda GL, Rosso S, Aversa S, Petrelli A, Ondolo C, Succo G.
Han D, et al. Polymorphisms in RYBP and AOAH genes are
Mul- tiparametric statistical correlations between paranasal
associated with chronic rhinosinusitis in a Chinese population:
sinus anatomic variations and chronic rhinosinusitis. Acta
a replication study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39247.
Otorhi- nolaryngol Ital. 2012;32:244-51.
344. Marple BF, Stankiewicz JA, Baroody FM, Chow JM, Conley DB,
366. Wagenmann M, Naclerio RM. Complications of sinusitis. The
Corey JP, et al. Diagnosis and management of chronic rhinosi-
Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 1992;90:552-4.
nusitis in adults. Postgrad Med. 2009;121:121-39.
367. Jones NS, Strobl A, Holland I. A study of the CT findings in
345. Bhattacharyya N. Clinical and symptom criteria for the ac-
100 patients with rhinosinusitis and 100 controls. Clin
curate diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope.
Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1997;22:47-51.
2006;116:1-22.
368. Bolger WE, Butzin CA, Parsons DS. Paranasal sinus bony an-
346. Numminen J, Ahtinen M, Huhtala H, Rautiainen M.
atomic variations and mucosal abnormalities: CT analysis for
Comparison of rhinometric measurements methods in
endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 1991;101:56-64.
intranasal pathology. Rhinology. 2003;41:65-8.
369. Holbrook EH, Brown CL, Lyden ER, Leopold DA. Lack of signif-
347. Hox V, Bobic S, Callebaux I, Jorissen M, Hellings PW. Nasal ob-
icant correlation between rhinosinusitis symptoms and specif-
struction and smell impairment in nasal polyp disease:
ic regions of sinus computer tomography scans. Am J Rhinol.
correlation between objective and subjective parameters.
2005;19:382-7.
Rhinology. 2010;48:426-32.
370. Longhini AB, Branstetter BF, Ferguson BJ. Otolaryngologists’
348. Hughes RG, Jones NS. The role of nasal endoscopy in outpa-
perceptions of odontogenic maxillary sinusitis. Laryngoscope.
tient management. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1998;23:224-6.
2012;122:1910-4.
349. Bhattacharyya N, Lee LN. Evaluating the diagnosis of chronic
371. Levi ME, Eusterman VD. Oral infections and antibiotic therapy.
rhinosinusitis based on clinical guidelines and endoscopy. Oto-
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2011;44:57-78.
laryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143:147-51.
372. Adde F V, Rozov T. Teste da sacarina em crianças. J Pneumo-
350. Lund VJ, Mackay IS. Staging in rhinosinusitus. Rhinology.
lol.1997;23:66-70.
1993;31:183-4.
373. Phipps CD, Wood WE, Gibson WS, Cochran WJ. Gastroesoph-
351. Araujo E, Dall C, Cantarelli V, Pereira A, Mariante AR. Micro-
ageal reflux contributing to chronic sinus disease in children:
biologia do meato médio na rinossinusite crônica. Rev. Bras.
a prospective analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
Otorrinolaringol. 2007;73:549-55.
2000;126:831-6.
352. Puchelle E, Aug F, Pham QT, Bertrand A. Comparison of three
374. Kaliner M. Treatment of sinusitis in the next millennium.
methods for measuring nasal mucociliary clearance in man.
Aller- gy and asthma proceedings: the official journal of
Acta Otolaryngol. 1981;91:297-303.
regional and state allergy societies. 1998;19:181-4.
353. Jorissen M, Van der Schueren B, Van den Berghe H, Cassiman
375. Krause HF. Allergy and chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol
JJ. Contribution of in vitro culture methods for respiratory
Head Neck Surg. 2003;128:14-6.
epithelial cells to the study of the physiology of the
376. Jones NS, Carney AS, Davis A. The prevalence of allergic rhi-
respiratory tract. Eur Respir J. 1991;4:210-7.
nosinusitis: a review. J Laryngol Otol. 1998;112:1019-30.
354. Colantonio D, Brouillette L, Parikh A, Scadding GK. Paradoxi-
377. Bailey B. The impact of pollution on the upper alimentary and
cal low nasal nitric oxide in nasal polyposis. Clin Exp Allergy.
respiratory tracts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992:736-40.
2002;32:698-701.
378. Benninger MS. Rhinitis, sinusitis and their relationships to al-
355. Holmstrom M, Scadding GK, Lund VJ, Darby YC. Assessment of
lergies. Am J Rhinol. 1992;6:37-43.
nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry
379. Emanuel IA, Shah SB. Chronic rhinosinusitis: allergy and sinus
and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology. 1990;28: 191-6.
computed tomography relationships. Otolaryngol Head Neck
356. Juto JE, Lundberg C. An optical method for determining
Surg. 2000;123:687-91.
changes in mucosal congestion in the nose in man. Acta
380. Grove R, Farrior J. Chronic hyperplastic sinus-itis in allergic
Otolaryngol. 1982;94:149-56.
patients: a bacteriologic study of 200 operative cases. J Aller-
357. Scadding G. Diagnostic tools in Rhinology. EAACI position
gy Clin Immunol. 1990;11:271-6.
Paper. Clin Transl Allergy. 2011:1-39.
381. Karlsson G, Holmberg K. Does allergic rhinitis predispose to
358. DeMarcantonio MA, Han JK. Nasal polyps: pathogenesis
sinusitis? Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;515:26-8; discussion 9.
and treatment implications. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.
382. Settipane GA, Chafee FH. Nasal polyps in asthma and rhi-
2011;44:685-95.
nitis. A review of 6,037 patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
359. Littman DR, Pamer EG. Role of the commensal microbiota in
1977;59:17-21.
normal and pathogenic host immune responses. Cell Host Mi-
383. Caplin I, Haynes JT, Spahn J. Are nasal polyps an allergic phe-
crobe. 2011;10:311-23.
nomenon? Ann Allergy. 1971;29:631-4.
360. Pedersen M, Sakakura Y, Winther B, Brofeldt S, Mygind N.
384. Bunnag C, Pacharee P, Vipulakom P, Siriyananda C. A study
Nasal mucociliary transport, number of ciliated cells, and
of allergic factor in nasal polyp patients. Ann Allergy.
beating pattern in naturally acquired common colds. Eur J
1983;50:126-32.
Respir Dis Suppl. 1983;128:355-65.
385. Blumstein GI, Tuft L. Allergy treatment in recurrent nasal
361. Duclos P, Sanderson LM, Lipsett M. The 1987 forest fire
polyposis: its importance and value. Am J Med Sci.
disaster in California: assessment of emergency room visits.
1957;234:269- 80.
Arch Envi- ron Health. 1990;45:53-9.
386. English G. Nasal polyposis. E G, editor. Philadelphia: Harper
362. Nachman KE, Parker JD. Exposures to fine particulate air pol-
and Row; 1985.
lution and respiratory outcomes in adults using two national
387. Drake-Lee AB. Histamine and its release from nasal polyps:
datasets: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health. 2012;11:25.
preliminary communication. J R Soc Med. 1984;77:120-4.
388. Settipane GA, Lund VJ, Bernstein JM, Tos M. Epidemiology of
409. Smyth AR, Barbato A, Beydon N, Bisgaard H, de Boeck K,
nasal polyps. In: Settipane GA, Lund VJ, Bernstein JM, Tos M
Brand P et al. Respiratory medicines for children: current ev-
(Eds). Nasal Polyps: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis and Treat-
idence, unlicensed use and research priorities. Eur Respir J.
ment. Providence, Rhode Island: OceanSide Publications,
2010;35:247-65.
Inc., 1997. pp. 17-24.
410. Mainz JG, Koitschev A. Management of chronic rhinosinusitis
389. Liu CM, Shun CT, Hsu MM. Lymphocyte subsets and antigen-
in CF. J Cyst Fibros. 2009;8:S10-4.
specific IgE antibody in nasal polyps. Ann Allergy.
411. Diretrizes Brasileiras de Rinossinusites. Rev Bras Otorrinolarin-
1994;72:19-24.
gol. 2008;74:6-59.
390. Bachert C, Gevaert P, Holtappels G, Johansson SG, van Cau-
412. Dubin MG, Liu C, Lin SY, Senior BA. American Rhinologic Soci-
wenberge P. Total and specific IgE in nasal polyps is related
ety member survey on “maximal medical therapy” for chronic
to local eosinophilic inflammation. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21:483-8.
2001;107:607-14.
413. Pandak N, Pajić-Penavić I, Sekelj A, Tomić-Paradžik M,
391. Taylor MB, Tan IT, Chan KT, Shen L, Shi L, Wang DY. A prospec-
Cabraja I, Miklaušić B. Bacterial colonization or infection in
tive study of bacterial flora in nasal cavity of patients with
chronic sinusitis. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2011;123:710-3.
persistent allergic rhinitis. Rhinology. 2012;50:139-46.
414. Cleland EJ, Bassiouni A, Wormald PJ. The bacteriology of
392. Bousquet J, Van Cauwenberge P, Khaltaev N. Allergic rhi-
chronic rhinossinusitis and the pre-eminence of Staphilo-
nitis and its impact on asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
coccus aureus in revision patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.
2001;108:S147-334.
2013;3:642-6.
393. Jarvis D, Newson R, Lotvall J, Hastan D, Tomassen P, Keil T, et
415. Cleland EJ, Drilling A, Bassiouni A, James C, Veugrede S, Wor-
al. Asthma in adults and its association with chronic
mald PJ. Probiotic manipulation of the chronic rhinossinusitis
rhinosinusitis: the GA2LEN survey in Europe. Allergy.
microbiome. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2014;4:309-14.
2012;67:91-8.
416. Piromchai P, Kasemsiri P, Laohasiriwong S, Thanaviratananich
394. Klossek JM, Neukirch F, Pribil C, Jankowski R, Serrano E, Cha-
S. Chronic rhinosinusitis and emerging treatment options. Int
nal I, et al. Prevalence of nasal polyposis in France: a cross-
J Gen Med. 2013;6:453-64.
sectional, case-control study. Allergy. 2005;60:233-7.
417. Adelson RT, Adappa ND. What is the proper role of oral antibi-
395. Downing E. Bronchial reactivity in patients with nasal poly-
otics in the treatment of chronic sinusitis? Curr Opin
posis before and after polypectomy. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
Otolaryn- gol Head Neck Surg. 2013;21:61-8.
1982;69:102.
418. Soler ZM, Oyer SL, Kern RC, Senior BA, Kountakis SE, Marple
396. Salvin RG, Cannon RE, Friedman WH, Palitang E, Sundaram
BF, et al. Antimicrobials and chronic rhinosinusitis with or
M. Sinusitis and bronchial asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
without polyposis in adults: an evidenced-based review with
1980;66:250-7.
recommendations. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:31-47.
397. Schwartz HJ, Thompson JS, Sher TH, Ross RJ. Occult sinus
419. Mandal R, Patel N, Ferguson BJ. Role of antibiotics in
abnormalities in the asthmatic patient. Arch Intern Med.
sinusitis. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012;25:183-92.
1987;147:2194-6.
420. Piromchai P, Thanaviratananich S, Laopaiboon M. Systemic
398. Serrano E, Neukirch F, Pribil C, Jankowski R, Klossek JM, Cha-
antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps in
nal I, et al. Nasal polyposis in France: Impact on sleep and
adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(5):CD008233.
quality of life. J Laryngol Otol. 2005;119:543-9.
421. Meltzer EO, Hamilos DL. Rhinosinusitis diagnosis and manage-
399. Alobid I, Cardelus S, Benitez P, Guilemany JM, Roca-Ferrer J,
ment for the clinician: a synopsis of recent consensus guide-
Picado C, et al. Persistent asthma has an accumulative
lines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:427-43.
impact on the loss of smell in patients with nasal polyposis.
422. Van Zele T, Gevaert P, Holtappels G, Beule A, Wormald PJ,
Rhinology. 2011;49:519-24.
Mayr S, et al. Oral steroids and doxycicline: two different
400. Chafee FH, Settipane GA. Aspirin intolerance. I. Frequency in
approaches to treat nasal polyps. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
an allergic population. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1974:193-9.
2010;125:1069- 76.e4.
401. Weber RW, Hoffman M, Raine DA Jr., Nelson HS. Incidence of
423. Ferguson BJ, Narita M, Yu VL, Wagener MM, Gwaltney JM Jr.
bronchoconstriction due to aspirin, azo dyes, non-azo dyes,
Prospective observational study of chronic rhinosinusitis:
and preservatives in a population of perennial asthmatics. J
environmental triggers and antibiotic implications. Clin
Infect Dis. 2012;54:62-8.
402. Szczeklik A, Gryglewski RJ, Czerniawska-Mysik G. Clinical
424. Schalek P, Petrás P, Klement V, Hahn A. Short-term antibiotics
patterns of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflamma-
treatment in patients with nasal polyps and enterotoxins pro-
tory drugs and their pathogenesis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
ducing Staphylococcus aureus strains. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn-
1977;60:276- 84.
gol. 2009;266:1909-13.
403. Spector SL, Wangaard CH, Farr RS. Aspirin and concomitant
425. Liu CM, Soldanova K, Nordstrom L, Dwan MG, Moss OL, Con-
idiosyncrasies in adult asthmatic patients. J Allergy Clin
tente-Cuomo TL, et al. Medical therapy reduces microbiota
Immu- nol. 1979;64:500-6.
diversity and evenness in surgically recalcitrant rhinosinusitis.
404. Ogino S. Aspirin-induced asthma and nasal polyps. Acta
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:775-81.
Otolar- yngol Suppl. 1986:(430):21-7.
426. Videler WJ, Badia L, Harvey RJ, Gane S, Georgalas C, van der
405. Szczeklik A, Stevenson DD. Aspirin-induced asthma: advanc-
Meulen FW, et al. Lack of efficacy of long term low-dose
es in pathogenesis and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
azithromycin in chronic rhinosisnusitis: a randomized
1999;104:5-13.
controlled trial. Allergy. 2011;66:1457-68.
406. May A, Wagner D, Langenbeck U, Weber A. Family study of
427. Wallwork B, Coman W, Mackay-Sim A, Greiff L, Cervin A. A
patients with aspirin intolerance and rhinosinusitis. HNO.
double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of
2000;48:650-4.
macrolide in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
407. Zhang N, Gevaert P, van Zele T, Perez-Novo C, Patou J,
Laryngoscope. 2006;116:189-93.
Holtap- pels G, et al. An update on the impact of
428. Videler WJ, van Hee K, Reinartz SM, Georgalas C, van der
Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins in chronic sinusitis with
Meu- len FW, Fokkens WJ. Long term low-dose antibiotics in
nasal polyposis. Rhi- nology. 2005;43:162-8.
recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitisL a retrospective analysis.
408. Godoy JM, Godoy AN, Ribalta G, Largo I. Bacterial pattern in
Rhinolo- gy. 2012;50:45-55.
chronic sinusitis and cystic fibrosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg. 2011;145:673-6.
429. Majima Y, Kurono Y, Hirakawa K, Ichimura K, Haruna S, Su-
447. Guilemany JM, Alobid I, Mullol J. Controversies in the treat-
zaki H, et al. Efficacy of combined treatment with S-carbox-
ment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Expert Rev Respir Med.
ymethylcysteine (carbocisteine) and clarithromycin in chronic
rhinosinusitis patients without nasal polyp or with small nasal 2010;4:463-77.
polyp. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2012;39:38-47. 448. Nayak A, Langdon RB. Montelukast in the treatment of
430. Wong KK, Marglani O, Westerberg BD, Javer AR. Systemic ab- allergic rhinitis. Drugs. 2007;67:887-901.
sorption of topical gentamicin sinus irrigation. J Otolaryngol 449. Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bonini S, Canonica
Head Neck Surg. 2008;37:395-8. GW, Casale TB, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asth-
431. Hilton C, Wiedmann T, St Martin M, Humphrey BM, ma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
Schieiffarth R, Rimell F. Differential deposition of aerosols in 2010;126:466-76.
the maxillary sinus of human cadáveres by partcle size. Am 450. Ragab S, Parikh A, Darby YC, Scadding GK. An open audit of
J Rhinol. 2008;22:395-8. montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, in nasal poly-
432. Huang A, Govindaraj S. Topical therapy in the management of posis associated with asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001;31:1385-
chronic rhinossinusitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 91.
2013;21:31-8. 451. Kieff DA, Busaba NY. Efficacy of montelukast in the treatment
433. Videler JW, van Drunen CM, Reitsma JB, Fokkens WJ. Nebu- of nasal polyposis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114:941-5.
lized bacitracin/colimycin: a treatment option in recalcitrant 452. Dahlén B, Nizankowska E, Szczeklik A, Zetterström O,
chronic rhinosinusitis with Staphylococcus aureus? A double- Bochenek G, Kumlin M, et al. Benefits from adding the 5-
blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot study. lipoxygenase inhibitor zileuton to conventional therapy in
Rhinology. 2008;46:92-8. aspirin-intolerant asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.
434. Csomor P, Sziklai I, Karosi T. Effects of intranasal steroid 1998;157:1187-94.
treatment on the presence of biofilms in non-allergic 453. Parnes SM, Chuma AV. Acute effects of antileukotrienes on si-
patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Eur nonasal polyposis and sinusitis. Ear Nose Throat J.
Arch Otorhi- nolaryngol. 2013 Aug 25. [Epub ahead of print] 2000;79:18- 20, 24-25.
435. Goggin R, Jardeleza C, Wormald PJ, Vreugde S. 454. Nonaka M, Sakanushi A, Kusama K, Ogihara N, Yagi T. One-
Corticosteroids directly reduce Staphylococcus aureus biofilm year evaluation of combined treatment with an intranasal
growth: An in vitro study. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:602-7. corticosteroid and montelukast for chronic rhinosinusitis
436. Snidvongs K, Kalish L, Sacks R, Sivasubramaniam R, Cope D, associated with asthma. J Nippon Med Sch. 2010;77:21-8.
Harvey RJ. Sinus surgery and delivery method influence the 455. Pauli C, Fintelmann R, Klemens C, Hilgert E, Jund F, Rasp G,
effectiveness of topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinus-
et al. Polyposis nasi-improvement in quality of life by the
itis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol
influence of leukotriene receptor antagonists.
Allergy. 2013;27:221-33.
Laryngorhinootolo- gie. 2007;86:282-6.
437. Wei CC, Adappa ND, Cohen NA. Use of topical nasal therapies
456. Stewart RA, Ram B, Hamilton G, Weiner J, Kane KJ. Mon-
in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope.
telukast as an adjunct to oral and inhaled steroid therapy
2013;123:2347-59.
in chronic nasal polyposis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
438. Rudmik L, Schlosser RJ, Smith TL, Soler ZM. Impact of topical
nasal steroid therapy on symptoms of nasal polyposis: a me- 2008;139:682-7.
ta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1431-7. 457. Mostafa BE, Abdel H, Mohammed HE, Yamani M. Role of leu-
439. Kalish L, Snidvongs K, Sivasubramaniam R, Cope D, Harvey RJ. kotriene inhibitors in the postoperative management of nasal
Topical steroids for nasal polyps. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. polyps. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2005;67:148-53.
2012;12:CD006549. 458. Dahlén SE, Nizankowska E, Dahlén B. The Swedish-Polish
440. Lal D, Hwang PH. Oral corticosteroid therapy in chronic rhi- treatment study with the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor Zileuton
nosinusitis without polyposis: a systematic review. Int Forum in aspirin-intolerant asthmatics. Am J Resp Crit Care Med.
Allergy Rhinol. 2011; 136-43. 1995;151:370-6.
441. Poetker DM, Jakubowski LA, Lal D, Hwang PH, Wright ED, 459. Ferguson BJ, Otto BA, Pant H. When surgery, antibiotics, and
Smith TL. Oral corticosteroids in the management of adult steroids fail to resolve chronic rhinosinusitis. Immunol Allergy
chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: an evi- Clin North Am. 2009;29:719-32.
dence-based review with recommendations. Int Forum Allergy 460. Vuralkan E, Saka C, Akin I, Hucumenoglu S, Unal B. U, Kuran G
Rhinol. 2013;3:104-20. et al. Comparison of montelukast andvmometasone furoate in
442. Van Crombruggen K, Zhang N, Gevaert P, Tomassen P, Bachert the prevention of recurrent nasal polyps. Ther Adv Respir Dis.
C. Pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis: inflammation. J Al- 2012;6:5-10.
lergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128:728-32. 461. Alobid I, Mullol J. Role of medical therapy in the management
443. Roca-Ferrer J, Garcia-Garcia FJ, Pereda, Perez-Gonzalez M, of nasal polyps. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2012;12:144-53.
Pujols L, Alobid I, et al. Reduced expression of COXs and pro- 462. Scadding GW, Scadding GK. Recent advances in
duction of prostaglandin E(2) in patients with nasal polyps antileukotriene therapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol.
with or without aspirin-intolerant asthma. J Allergy Clin 2010;10:370-6.
Immunol. 2011;128:66-72. 463. Graefe H, Roebke C, Schäfer D, Meyer JE. Aspirin sensitivity
444. Bousquet J, Khaltaev N, Cruz AA, Denburg J, Fokkens WJ, To- and chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps: a fatal combination. J
gias A, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Allergy (Cairo). 2012;2012:817-910.
2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health 464. Rizk H. Role of aspirin desensitization in the management of
Organiza- tion, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen). Allergy. 2008;63:8- chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
160. 2011;19:210-7.
445. Mullol J, Callejas FB, Méndez-Arancibia E, Fuentes M, Alobid
465. Kutlu A, Salihoglu M, Haholu A, Cesmeci E, Cincik H, Ozturk S.
I, Martínez-Antón A, et al. Montelukast reduces eosinophilic
Short-term Beneficial Effect of Aspirin in Patient with Chronic
inflammation by inhibiting both epithelial cell cytokine secre-
Rhinosinusitis and Tolerant to Acetylsalicylic Acid. Iran J
tion (GM-CSF, IL-6, IL-8) and eosinophil survival. J Biol Regul
Aller- gy Asthma Immunol. 2013;12:400-3.
Homeost Agents. 2010;24:403-11.
466. Varalda DB, Motta AA. Reações adversas aos antinflamatórios
446. Di Capite J, Nelson C, Bates G, Parekh AB. Targeting Ca2þ re-
lease-activated Ca2þ channel channels and leukotriene recep- não esteroidais. Rev Bras Alerg Imunopatol. 2009;32:27-33.
tors provides a novel combination strategy for treating nasal 467. Xu JJ, Sowerby L, Rotenberg. BW. Aspirin desensitization for
polyposis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:1014-21.e1-3. aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (Samter’s Triad): a
systematic review of the literature. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.
2013;3:915-20.
468. Garcia Cruz ML, Jimenez-Chobillon MA, Teran LM. Rhinosinusi-
488. Murr AH, Goldberg AN, Pletcher SD, Dillehay K, Wymer LJ,
tis and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. J Allergy
Ves- per SJ. Some chronic rhinosinusitis patients have
(Cai- ro). 2012;2012:273-752.
elevated populations of fungi in their sinuses. Laryngoscope.
469. Miller B, Mirakian R, Gane S, Larco J, Sannah AA, Darby Y et
2012;122:1438- 45.
al. Nasal lysine aspirin challenge in the diagnosis of aspirin –
489. Ricchetti A1, Landis BN, Maffioli A, Giger R, Zeng C, Lacroix
exacerbated respiratory disease: asthma and rhinitis. Clin Exp
JS. Effect of antifungal nasal lavage with amphotericin B on
Allergy. 2013;43:874-80.
nasal polyposis. J Laryngol Otol. 2002;116:261-3.
470. Klimek L, Pfaar O. Aspirin Intolerance: Does desensitization
490. Jornot L, Rochat T, Lacroix JS. Nasal polyps and middle turbi-
alter the course of the disease? Immunol Allergy Clin North
Am. 2009;29:669-75. nates epithelial cells sensitivity to amphotericin B. Rhinology.
471. Lee R, White AA, Ding D, Dursun AB, Woessner KM, Simon RA 2003;41:201-5.
et al. Use of intranasal ketorolac and modified oral aspirin 491. Javer AR, Chan KO. Itraconazole in the treatment of refracto-
challenge for desensitization of aspirin-exacerbated ry allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
respiratory disease. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;131:P54.
2010;105:130-5. 492. Chan KO, Genoway KA, Javer AR. Effectiveness of
472. Chang JE, Chin W, Simon R. Aspirin-sensitive asthma and itraconazole in the management of refractory allergic fungal
upper airway diseases. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:27-30. rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;37:870-4.
473. Palikhe NS, Kim JH, Park HS. Update on Recent Advances in 493. Rains BM III, Mineck CW. Treatment of allergic fungal sinusitis
the Management of Aspirin Exacerbated Respiratory Disease. with high-dose itraconazole. Am J Rhinol. 2003;17:1-8.
Yonsei Med J. 2009;50:744-50. 494. Jen A, Kacker A, Huang C, Anand V. Fluconazole nasal spray
474. Choi GS, Kim JH, Shin YM, Ye Kim SH, Park HS. Eosinophil ac- in the treatment of allergic fungal sinusitis: A pilot study. Ear
tivation and novel mediators in the aspirin-induced nasal re- Nose Throat J. 2004;83:692, 694-5.
sponse in AERD. Clin Exp Allergy. 2013;43:730-40. 495. Ottoline ACX, Tomita S, Marques MPC, Felix F, Ferraiolo PN,
475. Burnett T, Katial R, Alam R. Mechanisms of aspirin Laurindo RSS. Antibiotic prophylaxis in otolaryngologic
desensitization. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. surgery. Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;17:85-91.
2013;33:223-36. 496. Portela RA, Hootnick J, McGinn J. Perioperative care in func-
476. Rachel U, Lee RU, Stevenson DD. Aspirin-exacerbated respira- tional endoscopic sinus surgery: a survey study. Int Forum Al-
tory disease: evaluation and management. Allergy Asthma Im- lergy Rhinol. 2012;2:27-33.
munol Res. 2011;3:3-10. 497. Tysome J, Sharp H. Current trends in pre and postoperative
477. Ponikau JU, Sherris DA, Kita H, Kern EB. Intranasal antifungal management of functional endoscopic sinus surgery. IJORL.
treatment in tients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin 5(2). Disponível em: http://ispub.com/IJORL/5/2/12413.
Immunol. 2002;110:862-6. Acessado em 20/09/2013.
478. Kern EB, Sherris D, Stergiou AM, Katz LM, Rosenblatt LC, 498. Hwang PH, Nayak JV, Wang JY. Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A
Ponikau J. Diagnosis and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: Pa- tient’s Guide. Disponível em:
focus on intranasal Amphotericin B. Ther Clin Risk Manag. http://med.stanford.edu/ohns/
2007;3:319-25. patient_care/sinus_guide.html. Acessado em 20/09/2013.
479. Corradini C, Del Ninno M, Buonomo A, Nucera E, Paludetti 499. Preparing for Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. Disponível em:
G, Alonzi C, et al. Amphotericin B and lysine acetylsalicy- http://
late in the combined treatment of nasal polyposis associat- www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sinus/patient_information/pre-
ed with mycotic infection. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. paring_for_endoscopic_sinus_surgery.html. Acessado em
2006;16:188-93. 20/09/2013.
480. Gerlinger I, Fittler A, Fónai F, Patzkó A, Mayer A, Botz L. Post- 500. Cirurgia endoscópica dos seios paranasais. Disponível em:
operative application of amphotericin B nasal spray in chronic http://www.otorrinousp.org.br/imageBank/seminarios/semi-
rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, with a review of the anti- nario_76.pdf. Acessado em 20/09/2013.
fungal therapy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266:847-55. 501. Maier W, Strutz J. Perioperative single dose prevention with
481. Helbing A, Baumann A, Hanni C, Caversaccio M. Amphotericin cephalosporins in the ENT area. A prospective randomized
B nasal spray has no effect on nasal polyps. J Laryngol Otol. study. Laryngorhinootologie. 1992;71:365-9.
2006;120:1023-5. 502. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Antibiotic
482. Weschta M, Rimek D, Formanek M, Polzehl D, Podbielski A, prophylaxis in surgery. A national clinical guideline. Edin-
Riechelmann H. Topical antifungal treatment of chronic rhi- burgh, Scotland: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Net-
nosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized, double-blind work; 2008, 67p.
clinical trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:1122-8. 503. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG,
483. Montone KT. Role of fungi in the pathophysiology of chronic Bolon MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial
rhinosinusitis: an update. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013;14:73-156.
2013;13:224- 8. 504. Quintero GA, Sefair C, Ferraz EM, Ferraina P, Robledo F, Hart-
484. Khalil Y, Tharwat A, Abdou AG, Essa E, Elsawy AH, Elnakib O, man C. Manual Latino-americano de Guias Baseadas na
et al. The role of antifungal therapy in the prevention of Evidên- cia - SHEA. Estratégias para a Prevenção da Infecção
recurrent allergic fungal rhinosinusitis after functional Associada ao Atendimento na Saúde – ESPIAAS. 2009. 184p.
endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized, controlled study. Ear Disponível em: www.shea-online.org. Acessado em
Nose Throat J. 2011;90:E1-7. 20/09/2013.
485. Sacks PL 4th, Harvey RJ, Rimmer J, Gallagher RM, Sacks R. 505. Albert Stein – Sociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira. Pro-
Antifungal therapy in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: filaxia antimicrobiana em cirurgia. Manual Farmacêutico. Dis-
a meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:141-7. ponível em www.einstein.br. Acessado em 20/09/2013.
486. Sacks PL, Harvey RJ, Rimmer J, Gallagher RM, Sacks R. 506. Protocolo de antibioticoprofilaxia no paciente cirúrgico.
Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for the symptomatic 2014. Disponível em:
treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst www.hospitalsiriolibanes.org.br/.../protocolo-
Rev. 2011;(8):CD008263. antibioticoprofilaxia.pdf. Acessado em 20/09/2013.
487. Stankiewicz JA, Musgrave BK, Scianna JM. Nasal amphotericin 507. Wright ED, Agrawal S. Impact of perioperative systemic ster-
irrigation in chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol oids on surgical outcomes in patients with chronic
Head Neck Surg. 2008;16:44-6. rhinosinusitis with polyposis: evaluation with the novel
Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system.
Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1- 28.
508. Atighechi S, Azimi MR, Mirvakili SA, Baradaranfar MH, Dadgar-
529. Anderson P, Sindwani R. Safety and efficacy of the endoscop-
nia MH. Evaluation of intraoperative bleeding during an endo-
ic modified Lothrop procedure: a systematic review and me-
scopic surgery of nasal polyposis after a pre-operative single
ta-analyses. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:1828-33.
dose versus a 5-day course of corticosteroid. Eur Arch Otorhi-
530. Cornet ME, Reinartz SM, Georgalas C, van Spronsen E,
nolaryngol. 2013;270:2451-4.
Fokkens WJ. The microdebrider, a step forward or an
509. Albu S, Gocea A, Mitre I. Preoperative treatment with topical
expensive gadget? Rhinology. 2012;50:191-8.
corticoids and bleeding during primary endoscopic sinus sur-
531. Kacker A, Tabaee A, Anand V. Computer-assisted surgical nav-
gery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143:573-8.
igation in revision endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin
510. Dalgorf DM, Sacks R, Wormald PJ, Naidoo Y, Panizza B, Uren
North Am. 2005;38:473-82, vi.
B, et al. Image-guided surgery influences perioperative from
532. Tomazic PV, Stammberger H, Braun H, Habermann W, Schmid
ESS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head
C, Hammer GP, et al. Feasibility of balloon sinuplasty in pa-
Neck Surg. 2013;149:17-29.
tients with chronic rhinosinusitis: the Gratz experience. Rhi-
511. Ahmed J, Pal S, Hopkins C, Jayaraj S. Functional endoscop-
nology. 2013;51:120-7.
ic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis.
533. Koskinen A, Penttilä M, Myller J, Hammarén-Malmi S, Silvola
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;(7):CD008515.
J, Haahtela T, et al. Endoscopic sinus surgery might reduce
512. Naidoo Y, Bassiouni A, Keen M, Wormald PJ. Long-term out-
exacerbations and symptoms more than ballon sinuplasty. Am
comes for the endoscopic modified Lothrop/Draf III
J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;26:150-56
procedure: a 10-year review. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:43-9.
534. Plaza G, Eisenberg G, Montojo J, Onrubia T, Urbasos M,
513. Kennedy DW, Zinreich SJ, Rosenbaum AE, Johns ME.
O’Con- nor C. Balloon dilation of the frontal recess: a
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: theory and diagnosis.
randomized clinical trial. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.
Arch Otolaryn- gol. 1985;111:576-82.
2011;120:511-8.
514. Stammberger H. Endoscopic endonasal surgery – concepts in
535. Welch KC, Stankiewicz JA. A contemporary review of endo-
treatment of recurring rhinosinusitis. Part II. Surgical tech-
scopic sinus surgery: techniques, tools and outcomes. Laryn-
nique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;94:147-56.
goscope. 2009;119:2258-68.
515. Fellipu A. Nasal centripetal endoscopic sinus surgery. Ann Otol
536. Harvey RJ, Psaltis A, Schlosser RJ, Witterick IJ. Current con-
Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120:581-5.
cepts in topical therapy for chronic sinonasal disease. J
516. Catalano PJ, Strouch M. The minimally invasive sinus tech-
Otolar- yngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;39:217-31.
nique: theory and practice. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.
537. Moller W, Schuschnig U, Celik G, Munzings W, Bartenstein P,
2004;37:401-9, viii.
Haussinger P, et al. Topical Drug delivery in chronic rhinosi-
517. Setliff RC 3rd. Minimally invasive sinus surgery: the ra-
nusitis patients before and after sinus surgery using pulsating
tionale and the technique. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.
aerosols. PLoS One. 2013;6:e74991.
1996;29:115-24.
538. Harvey RJ, Goddard JC, Wise SK, Schlosser RJ. Effects of en-
518. Jankowski R, Pigret D, Decroocq F, Blum A, Gillet P. Compari-
doscopic sinus surgery and delivery device on cadavers in us
son of radical (nasalization) and functional ethmoidectomy in
irrigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;139:137-42.
patients with severe sinonasal polyposis. A retrospective
539. Snidvongs K, Chaowanapanja P, Aeumjaturapat S, Chusakul S,
study. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2006;127:131-40.
Praweswararat P. Does nasal irrigationenter paranasal sinuses
519. Masterson L, Tanweer F, Bueser T, Leong P. Extensive
in chronicrhinosinusitis? Am J Rhinol. 2008;22:483-6.
endoscopic sinus surgery: does this reduce the revision rate
540. Grobler A, Weitzel EK, Buele A, Jardeleza C, Cheong YC, Field
for nasal polyposis? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.
J, et al. Pre- and postoperative sinus penetration of nasal irri-
2010;267:1557-61.
gation. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2078-81.
520. Wu AW, Ting JY, Platt MP, Tierney HT, Metson R. Factors
541. Rowe-Jones JM1, Medcalf M, Durham SR, Richards DH, Mackay
affecting time to revision sinus surgery for nasal polyps: a
IS. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: 5 year follow up and
25-year experience. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:29-33.
results of a prospective, randomised, stratified, double-blind,
521. Smith TL, Batra PS, Seiden AM, Hannley M. Evidence sup-
placebo controlled study of postoperative fluticasone
porting endoscopic sinus surgery in the management of adult
propionate aqueous nasal spray. Rhinology. 2005;43:2-10.
chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review. Am J Rhinol.
542. Jorissen M, Bachert C. Effect of corticosteroids on wound
2005;19:537-43.
healing after endoscopic sinus surgery. Rhinology.
522. Chester AC, Antisdel JL, Sindwani R. Symptom-specific out-
2009;47:280-6.
comes of endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review. Oto-
543. Stjarne P, Olsson P, Alenius M. Use of mometasone furoate to
laryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:633-9.
prevent polyp relapse after endoscopic sinus surgery. Arch
523. Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P. Endoscopic
Oto- laryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135:296-302.
sinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyposis: a systematic
544. Dijkstra MD, Ebbens FA, Poublon RM, Fokkens WJ. F
review of safety and effectiveness. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20:506-
Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray does not
19.
influence the recurrence rate of chronic rhinosinusitis and
524. Mendelsohn D, Jeremic G, Wright ED, Rotenberg BW. Revision
nasal polyps 1 year after functional endoscopic sinus surgery.
rates after endoscopic sinus surgery: a recurrence analysis.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2004;34:1395-400.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120:162-6.
545. Baradaranfar MH, Ahmadi ZS, Dadgarnia MH, Bemanian MH,
525. Bassiouni A, Naidoo Y, Wormald PJ. When FESS fails: the in-
Atighechi S, Karimi G, et al. Comparison of effect of
flammatory load hypothesis in refractory chronic rhinosinusi-
endoscopic sinus surgery versus medical therapy on
tis. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:460-6.
olfaction in nasal polyposis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.
526. Snidvongs K, Chin D, Sacks R, Earls P, Harvey RJ. Eosinophilic
2014;271:311-6.
rhinosinusitis is not a disease of ostiomeatal occlusion. Laryn-
546. Snidvongs K, Kalish L, Sacks R, Craig JC, Harvey RJ. Topical
goscope. 2013;123:1070-4.
steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps. Cochrane Da-
527. Lee JM, Chiu AG. Role of maximal endoscopic sinus surgery
tabase Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD009274.
techniques in chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Clin N Am.
547. Fandiño M, Macdonald KI, Lee J, Witterick IJ. The use of post-
2010;43:579-89, ix.
operative topical corticosteroids in chronic rhinosinusitis with
528. Cho D, Hwang PH. Results of endoscopic maxillary mega-
nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J
antrostomy in recalcitrant maxillary sinusitis. Am J Rhinol.
Rhi- nol Allergy. 2013;27:e146-57.
2008;22:658-62.
548. Adappa ND, Wei CC, Palmer JN. Nasal irrigation with or with-
out drugs: the evidence. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg. 2012;20:53-7.
549. Wormald PJ, Cain T, Oates L, Hawke L, Wong I. A compara-
571. Spaeth J, Krugelstein U, Schlondorff G. The paranasal sinuses
tive study of three methods of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope.
in CT-imaging: development from birth to age 25. Int J
2004;114:2224-7.
Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;39:25-40.
550. Freeman SR, Sivayoham ES, Jepson K, de Carpentier J. A pre-
572. Park IH, Song JS, Choi H, Kim TH, Hoon S, Lee SH, et al. Vol-
liminary randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy
umetric study in the development of paranasal sinuses by CT
of saline douching following endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin
imaging in Asian: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
Otolar- yngol. 2008;33:462-5.
2010;74:1347-50.
551. Cain R, Lal D. Update on the management of chronic rhinosi-
573. Chow AW, Benninger MS, Brook I, Brozek JL, Goldstein EJ,
nusitis. Infect Drug Resist. 2013;6:1-14.
Hicks LA, et al. IDSA clinical practice guideline for acute bac-
552. Rudmik L, Soler ZM, Orlandi RR, Stewart MG, Bhattacharyya
terial rhinosinusitis in children and adults. Clin Infect Dis.
N, Kennedy DW, et al. Early postoperative care following en-
2012;54:e72-e112.
doscopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based review with recom-
574. Wald ER. Beginning antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis and
mendations. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1:417-30.
choosing the right treatment. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol.
553. Liang KL, Su MC, Tseng HC, Jiang RS. Impact of pulsatile nasal
2006;30:143-52.
irrigation on the prognosis of functional endoscopic sinus sur-
575. Wald ER, Applegate KE, Bordley C, Darrow DH, Glode MP, Mar-
gery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;37:148-53.
cy SM, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and
554. Chiu AG, Palmer JN, Woodworth BA, Doghramji L, Cohen MB,
management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children aged 1 to
Prince A, et al. Baby shampoo nasal irrigations for the symp-
18 years. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e262-80.
tomatic post-functional endoscopic sinus surgery patient.Am
576. Kristo A, Uhari M, Luotonen J, Koivunen P, Ilkko E, Tapiainen
J Rhinol. 2008;22:34-7.
T, et al. Paranasal sinus findings in children during respiratory
555. Farag AA, Deal AM, McKinney KA, Thorp BD, Senior BA, Ebert
infection evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Pediat-
CS Jr., et al. Single-blind randomized controlled trial of sur-
rics. 2003;111:e586-9.
factant vs. hypertonic saline irrigation following endoscopic
577. Marseglia GL, Pagella F, Klersy C, Barberi S, Licari A, Ciprandi
endonasal surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:276-80.
G. The 10-day mark is a good way to diagnose not only acute
556. Rudmik L, Smith TL. Evidence-based practice: postoperative
rhinosinusitis but also adenoiditis, as confirmed by endoscopy.
care in endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71:581-3.
2012;45:1019-32.
578. Wald ER, Milmoe GJ, Bowen A, Ledesma-Medina J, Salamon N,
557. Orlandi RR, Hwang PH. Perioperative care for advanced
Bluestone CD. Acute maxillary sinusitis in children. N Engl J
rhinology procedures. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.
Med. 1981;304:749-54.
2006;39:463-73, viii.
579. Falagas ME, Giannopoulou KP, Vardakas KZ, Dimopoulos G,
558. Kupferberg SB, Bent JP 3rd, Kuhn FA. Prognosis for allergic
Karageorgopoulos DE. Comparison of antibiotics with place-
fungal sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117:35-
bo for treatment of acute sinusitis: a meta- analysis of ran-
41.
domised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:543-52.
559. Schubert MS. Allergic fungal sinusitis: pathogenesis and man-
580. Critchley IA, Jacobs MR, Brown SD, Traczewski MM, Tillot-
agement strategies. Drugs. 2004;64:363-74.
son GS, Janjic N. Prevalence of serotype 19A Streptococcus
560. Schubert MS, Goetz DW. Evaluation and treatment of allergic
pneumoniae among isolates from U.S. children in 2005-2006
fungal sinusitis. II. Treatment and follow-up. J Allergy Clin
and activity of far- openem. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.
Im- munol. 1998;102:395-402.
2008;52:2639-2643.
561. Rupa V, Jacob M, Mathews MS, Seshadri MS. A prospective,
581. Jacobs MR, Good CE, Windau AR, Bajaksouzian S, Biek D,
randomised, placebo-controlled trial of postoperative oral
Critch- ley IA, et al. Activity of ceftaroline against recent
steroid in allergic fungal sinusitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.
emerging serotypes of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the
2010;267:233-8.
United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2716-9.
562. Saleh AM, Torres KM, Murad MH, Erwin PJ, Driscoll CL.
582. American Academy of Pediatrics, Sub- committee on Manage-
Prophy- lactic perioperative antibiotic use in endoscopic sinus
ment of Sinusitis and Committee on Quality Improvement.
surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol
Clinical practice guideline: management of sinusitis. Pediat-
Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:533-8.
rics. 2001;108:798-808.
563. Albu S, Lucaciu R. Prophylactic antibiotics in endoscopic si-
583. Shapiro GG, Virant FS, Furukawa CT, Pierson WE, Bierman CW.
nus surgery: a short follow-up study. Am J Rhinol Allergy.
Immunologic defects in patients with refractory sinusitis.
2010;24:306-9.
Pedi- atrics. 1991;87:311-316.
564. Annys E, Jorissen M. Short term effects of antibiotics (Zinnat)
584. Brook I, Gober AE. Antimicrobial resistance in the
after endoscopic sinus surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg.
nasopharyn- geal flora of children with acute maxillary
2000;54:23-8.
sinusitis and maxillary sinusitis recurring after amoxicillin
565. Moriyama H, Yanagi K, Ohtori N, Fukami M. Evaluation of
therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53:399-402.
endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic sinusitis: post-operative
585. Elwany S, El-Dine AN, El-Medany A, Omran A, Mandour Z, El-
erythromycin therapy. Rhinology. 1995;33:166-70.
Salam AA. Relationship between bacteriology of the adenoid
566. Seiberling K, Wormald PJ. The role of itraconazole in recalci-
core and middle meatus in children with sinusitis. J Laryngol
trant fungal sinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23:303-6.
Otol. 2011;125:279-81.
567. Monto AS, Ullman BM. Acute respiratory illness in an
586. Shin KS, Cho SH, Kim KR, Tae K, Lee SH, Park CW, et al. The
American community. The Tecumseh study. JAMA.
role of adenoids in pediatric rhinosinusitis. Int J Pediatr
1974;227:164-9.
Otorhi- nolaryngol. 2008;72:1643-50.
568. Fox JP, Hall CE, Cooney MK, Luce RE, Kronmal RA. The Seattle
587. Nguyen KL, Corbett ML, Garcia DP, Eberly SM, Massey EN, Le
virus watch. II. Objectives, study population and its observa-
HT et al. Chronic sinusitis among pediatric patients with
tion, data processing and summary of illnesses. Am J
chronic respiratory complaints. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
Epidemi- ol. 1972;96:270-85.
1993;92:824-30.
569. Stahlberg MR. Effect of the type of day care on the occurence
588. Leo G, Piacentini E, Incorvaia C, Consonni D, Frati F. Chron-
of acute respiratory tract infections among young children.
ic rhinosinusitis and allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol.
Du- odecim. 1981;97:1394-403.
2007;18:19-21.
570. Revai K, Dobbs LA, Nair S, Patel JA, Grady JJ, Chonmaitree
589. Babinski D, Trawinska-Bartnicka M. Rhinosinusitis in cystic
T. Incidence of acute otitis media and sinusitis complicating
fibrosis: not a simple story. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
upper respiratory tract infection: the effect of age.
2008;72:619-24.
Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1408-12.
590. Gysin C, Alothman GA, Papsin BC. Sinonasal disease in cystic
597. Brietzke SE, Brigger MT. Adenoidectomy outcomes in pediatric
fibrosis: clinical characteristics, diagnosis, and management.
rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2000;30:481-9.
2008;72:1541-5.
591. Manning SC, Merkel M, Kriesel K, Vuitch F, Marple B.
598. Criddle MW, Stinson A, Savliwala M, Coticchia J. Pediatric
Computed tomography and magnetic resonance diagnosis of
chronic rhinosinusitis: a retrospective review. Am J Otolaryn-
allergic fungal sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:170-6.
gol. 2008;29:372-8.
592. Brook I. Bacteriology of acute and chronic ethmoid sinusitis. J
599. Ramadan HH, Cost JL. Outcome of adenoidectomy versus
Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:3479-80.
adenoidectomy with maxillary sinus wash for chronic
593. Muntz HR, Lusk RP. Bacteriology of the ethmoid bullae in chil-
rhinosinusitis in children. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:871-3.
dren with chronic sinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
600. Ramadan HH, Terrell AM. Balloon catheter sinuplasty and ad-
1991;117:179-81.
enoidectomy in children with chronic rhinosinusitis. Ann Otol
594. Hsin CH, Su MC, Tsao CH, Chuang CY, Liu CM. Bacteriology and
Rhinol Laryngol. 2010;119:578-82.
antimicrobial susceptibility of pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis:
601. Hebert RL 2nd, Bent JP 3rd. Meta-analysis of outcomes of
a 6-year result of maxillary sinus punctures. Am J
pediatric functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope.
Otolaryngol. 2010;31:145-9.
1998;108:796-9.
595. Harvey R, Hannan SA, Badia L, Scadding G. Nasal saline irri-
gations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD006394.
596. Ozturk F, Bakirtas A, Ileri F, Turktas I. Efficacy and tolerability
of systemic methylprednisolone in children and adolescents
with chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind, placebo-
controlled randomized trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2011;128:348-52.

Rhinosinusitis - Evidence and Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhinosinusitis - Evidence and Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhinosinusitis - Evidence and Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81(1 Supl.

• “Double worsening”: acute relapse or deterioration

Allergy Antimicrobial resistance

The association of mucolytics in the treatment of ARS is

There are few placebo-controlled, randomized, and dou-

A Cochrane review112 with ten studies demonstrated that

A systematic review113 of eight randomized controlled

Acute rhinosinusitis complications

Most RS complications originate from ethmoid sinus

Dissemination occurs by direct extension, bone erosion,

Bacteriology It is an intraconal lesion, commonly the consequence of

IL-6 Lisozimas, lactoferrinas.

and VCAM-1, results are controversial in the literature,

facilitating the influx of inflammatory cells. TGF-β, Fox-

Nasal endoscopy enables the systematic visualization of

CharacteristicInitial assessment Follow-up

Other examinations Score: 0 = no abnormalities; 1 = partial opacification; 2 = total opacifica

Bacterioscopy/sinus secretion culture

Indicated in cases refractory to treatment and when the

More often used in the presence of an associated allergic

It is important for the study and classification of the

Mucociliary function can be evaluated by mucociliary

The evaluation of olfaction can be performed with

Acetylsalicylic acid sensitivity test

When AERD is suspected, patients should be advised not to

Several laboratory tests can be performed in specific cases

It is crucial for patients with a positive history of

Review articles suggest that atopy predisposes to

Non-allergic eosinophilic rhinitis

Nonallergic eosinophilic rhinitis has similar clinical char-

CRSwNP and asthma are frequently and closely related,

Acetylsalicylic acid intolerance, asthma, and NPs are

The finding of NPs in a child is rare (less than 0.1% of

Primary or congenital immunodeficiencies manifest with

Concomitant chronic diseases

A number of diseases can be associated with CRS; due to

Topical corticosteroids (CRSwNP)

These medications favorably alter the cytokine profile in

Topical corticosteroids in CRSsNP

Unlike patients with polyposis, the results in the group

Systemic corticosteroids in CRSwNP

A recent systematic review recommended that these drugs

Systemic corticosteroids in CRSsNP

The same recent systematic review suggested that there

Antileukotrienes and chronic rhinosinusitis

Nasal polyposis (NP) is a chronic inflammatory disease of

Acetylsalicylic acid desensitization

Acetylsalicylic acid desensitization in cases of CRS has

The drugs used for desensitization are acetylsalicylic

Preoperative period in patients with surgical

Postoperative topical treatment

The purpose of antibiotic use postoperatively is to prevent

Kennedy et al.207 performed a single controlled trial (1b)

Special aspects of rhinosinusitis in children

On average, children younger than 5 years of age have be-

Paranasal sinuses in the child

Not all paranasal sinuses are developed at birth.

Definition and classification of ARS in children

ARS is defined and classified in children in the same way