Search

Objective: Laryngeal abscesses are rare in the modern antibiotic era. Historically, they were associated with systemic infections including typhoid fever, measles, gonorrhea, syphilis, and tuberculosis. More recent authors have described cases resulting from iatrogenic injury and immunosuppression. This report presents a novel case of laryngeal abscess in the setting of uncontrolled diabetes and a detailed review of modern, reported cases of spontaneous laryngeal abscess. Methods: Report of a single case. Also, PubMed was queried for cases of laryngeal abscess since 1985. Case report: A 58-year-old male with poorly controlled diabetes presented with odynophagia, dysphagia, and dyspnea. He had biphasic stridor, and flexible laryngoscopy showed reduced mobility of bilateral vocal folds and narrowed glottic airway. He was taken urgently for awake tracheostomy and microdirect laryngoscopy. Laryngoscopy demonstrated fullness and fluctuance of the right hemilarynx. The abscess cavity was entered endoscopically via paraglottic incision extending into the subglottis. The patient was treated with an 8-week course of ampicillin-sulbactam with resolution of infection. Results: Seven additional cases of spontaneous laryngeal abscesses published after 1985 were identified. In total, 6 of 8 had some form of immunodeficiency (75%). The most common presenting symptoms were dysphonia (8/8, 100%), odynophagia (5/8, 62.5%), and dyspnea/stridor (4/8, 50%). All cases were treated with surgical incision and drainage. Conclusions: Laryngeal abscesses are rare in the era of modern antibiotics. This review confirms that the majority of recent episodes occurred in the setting of immunodeficiency and are caused by non-tubercular bacteria. These infections are commonly associated with impaired vocal fold mobility which may contribute to dyspnea, stridor, and airway compromise. Surgical intervention is necessary for treatment and culture-directed antimicrobial therapy. Poorly controlled diabetes is a newly described context for development of spontaneous laryngeal abscess. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been considerable interest in identifying aerosol- and droplet-generating procedures, as well as efforts to mitigate the spread of these potentially dangerous particulates. This study evaluated the efficacy of a prototype nasolaryngoscopy hood (PNLH) during various clinical scenarios that are known to generate aerosols and droplets.Study Design: Prospective detection of airborne aerosol generation during clinical simulation while wearing an PNLH.Setting: Clinical examination room.Methods: A particle counter was used to calculate the average number of 0.3-µm particles/L detected during various clinical scenarios that included sneezing, nasolaryngoscopy, sneezing during nasolaryngoscopy, and topical spray administration. Experiments were repeated to compare the PNLH versus no protection. During the sneeze experiments, additional measurements with a conventional N95 were documented.Results: There was a significant increase in aerosols detected during sneezing, sneezing during nasolaryngoscopy, and spray administration, as compared with baseline when no patient barrier was used. With the PNLH in place, the level of aerosols returned to comparable baseline levels in each scenario. Of note, routine nasolaryngoscopy did not lead to a statistically significant increase in aerosols.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the PNLH is a safe and effective form of protection that can be used in clinical practice to help mitigate the generation of aerosols during nasolaryngoscopy. While nasolaryngoscopy itself was not shown to produce significant aerosols, the PNLH managed to lessen the aerosol burden during sneezing episodes associated with nasolaryngoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of otolaryngology has changed drastically since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. To limit exposure and maintain a reserve of caregivers, residency education ceased most clinical activities and shifted to remote lecture consortiums hosted online across the country in lieu of ambulatory and operative experiences. Many practicing university otolaryngologists have transitioned their clinics to telehealth medicine to maintain access to clinical care during the pandemic. The participation of residents in telemedicine visits has not been described. Here we present guidelines and experience-based suggestions for successful resident involvement in telemedicine. While it is unclear what role telehealth medicine may play within the field of otolaryngology beyond the pandemic, our experiences suggest better patient outreach and access. Expanding residents' skill set with telehealth medicine can enhance their education and better prepare them for future practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within otolaryngology, scribes have been utilized as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and easing workload on physicians. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of otolaryngology clinic appointments at academic institutions have been moved to telemedicine in order to limit interpersonal contacts. At the height of the pandemic, our institution has protocolized scribe participation from in-person to remote. Scribes have virtually participated in telemedicine appointments in an effort to facilitate documentation and enhance the patient-physician relationship. Beyond the pandemic, as patients start being evaluated in-person, the risk of contamination and spread through aerosol generating procedures has limited the number of ancillary support staff that can be present in the examination rooms. As such, virtual scribing from a separate location within the clinic has been deemed warranted. This paper documents the protocols on virtual scribing for both telemedicine and a hybrid approach for in-clinic appointments where high-risk procedures are being performed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare they have no financial, consultant, institutional, or other relationships that may lead to a bias or conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)