Objectives: . Patients with empty nose syndrome typically experience paradoxical nasal congestion, nasal dryness, epistaxis, and suffocation. Conservative management is generally preferred for empty nose syndrome. However, some patients continue to experience persistent symptoms. When symptoms do not resolve, surgical options are considered. Therefore, we reviewed the surgical and regenerative treatment options for empty nose syndrome. Methods: . PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from the earliest date provided in the database until December 2022. This review included studies that assessed treatment outcomes using patient symptom scores, including the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20, -22, and -25) and the Empty Nose Syndrome 6-Item Questionnaire, supplemented by various clinical examinations. Results: . Twenty-eight studies were analyzed. Various materials were utilized, including submucosal injectable materials, allografts/xenografts/cadaveric implants, autologous implants, and synthetic implants. The polyethylene implant was the most commonly used (23.3%), followed by autologous, homologous, or cadaveric costal cartilage (20%). The anterior-inferior lateral nasal wall was the most frequent site of administration. Most studies indicated that surgical intervention led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes, as evidenced by endoscopic exams, acoustic rhinometry, and computed tomography scans, along with patient-reported enhancements in nasal symptoms, psychological well-being, and overall health-related quality of life. However, several studies found no improvement in certain psychological-related questionnaires or saccharin transit times. The average follow-up duration was 12.0 months (range, 2.0–27.6 months). Only two studies reported postoperative adverse effects. Conclusion . Several surgical options and recent tissue regeneration techniques have demonstrated efficacy in treating empty nose syndrome. However, more detailed investigations involving a larger number of participants and a randomized control study are necessary to establish a standardized treatment protocol for patients with empty nose syndrome.

Objectives: . The aim of this study was to compare the effect of steroid-impregnated spacers to that of conventional management after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods: . Six databases were searched from inception until November 2022. Sixteen studies were found that compared the improvement of chronic sinusitis-related symptoms and postoperative outcomes between a steroid-impregnated spacer group and a control group (non-steroid-impregnated spacers). The Cochrane risk of bias tool (for randomized controlled studies) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for non-randomized controlled studies) were used to assess the quality of the works included. Results: . Regarding the endoscopic findings, the degree of mucosal edema, ethmoid inflammation, crust formation at 2–3 months postoperatively, nasal discharge, polyposis, and scarring/synechia were significantly lower in the steroid-impregnated spacer group. The steroid-impregnated spacer group also showed significantly lower Lund–Kennedy scores and perioperative sinus endoscopy scores than the control group at 2–3 weeks postoperatively. Furthermore, the steroid-impregnated spacer group had lower rates of adhesions, middle turbinate lateralization, polypoid changes, the need for oral steroid use, the need for postoperative therapeutic interventions, and lysis of adhesions than controls. However, no significant between-group differences were found in short-term (2–3 weeks postoperatively) endoscopic findings regarding nasal discharge, postoperative crusting, polyposis, or scarring/synechia. Conclusion . Steroid-impregnated nasal packing reduced the rates of postoperative intervention and recurrent polyposis and inflammation in CRS patients undergoing ESS.

Objectives: . The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in clinical and laboratory features between eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and non-ECRS and to compare diagnostic criteria for ECRS. Methods: . We compared clinical features and/or laboratory findings classified as ECRS and non-ECRS according to various diagnostic criteria (histological and clinical). We also analyzed studies to compare endoscopic findings, symptom scores, laboratory findings, and computed tomography (CT) findings between ECRS and non-ECRS. Results: . Our search included 55 studies with 6,143 patients. A comparison of clinical features and/or laboratory criteria with histological criteria showed no significant differences in nasal symptom scores and CT scores according to criteria. Serum eosinophil levels showed differences across the criteria, with ECRS consistently characterized by higher serum eosinophil levels than non-ECRS. Among the four criteria, the Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) criteria and tissue eosinophilia (≥70) were associated with decreased olfactory function. In laboratory findings, the eosinophil percentage (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.329–1.794; P<0.001) and eosinophil count (SMD, 1.493; 95% CI, 1.134–1.852; P<0.001) of eosinophils were higher in ECRS than non-ECRS. In clinical findings, nasal symptom scores (SMD, 0.382; 95% CI, 0.156–0.608; P<0.001), endoscopic nasal polyp scores (SMD, 0.581; 95% CI, 0.314–0.848; P<0.001), and olfactory dysfunction (SMD, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.037–0.794; P=0.031) were higher in ECRS than in non-ECRS. With regard to CT findings, the whole-sinus opacification score (SMD, 0.824; 95% CI, 0.588–1.059; P<0.001) was higher in ECRS than in non-ECRS. In particular, there were significant differences in anterior ethmoid sinus and sphenoid sinus opacification. Conclusion . ECRS and non-ECRS differ in their clinical and laboratory features. When histological confirmation is difficult on an outpatient basis, ECRS could be diagnosed using clinical features and/or laboratory findings.