Search

Although fungus-related sinusitis has been described for at least 2 centuries, a more detailed pathologic description of the problem as it relates to eosinophilic disease was not detailed until 1983, when "allergic fungal sinusitis" was described histopathologically. Until then, most fungal sinus disease was perceived to occur in immunosuppressed diabetic patients with invasive fungus. It is now acknowledged that depending upon the immune status of the host, fungus-related sinus disease can take several forms. Interest in this subject matter was intensified in 1999, when it was suggested that fungi might be an important cause of most cases of chronic rhinosinusitis. This hypothesis remains controversial, and there is mounting evidence to support the multifactorial nature of chronic rhinosinusitis, which may include fungus. In fact, etiologic factors for all forms of fungus-related sinus disease are still poorly understood. The prevalence of the disease and the dominant fungal pathogen appear to vary in different geographic regions and probably are related to individual host conditions. Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic reactions to mold appear to be associated with disease in some patients, but not in all. Although antifungal therapy is known to be lifesaving for invasive disease, its role in extramucosal disease is less well defined. Preliminary trials suggest that some systemic and topical antifungal agents are of clinical benefit in extramucosal disease. Since sinus fungi are rarely invasive in immunocompetent individuals, it is not clear whether the effects of the antifungal treatments are a result of the antifungal action itself, or due to additional properties these drugs possess. This review summarizes the available data and presents some of our clinical and experimental findings as to the role of fungus in chronic rhinosinusitis.

Background: Recent evidence suggests that endoscopically obtained cultures from the middle meatus give comparable results to antral puncture for acute sinusitis. The best method for obtaining middle meatal cultures remains somewhat controversial because it has been theorized that specimens obtained with a swab are contaminated easily. This study compares endoscopic culture results from two different methods: swab and aspiration. Specifically, this study sought to determine whether or not the culture contamination rate is higher using the swab versus an aspiration technique., Methods: One hundred consecutive culture specimensfrom 81 chronic rhinosinusitis patients were compared. Fifty cultures were obtained using a swab technique (group I) and another 50 cultures were obtained by aspirating pathological material into a sterile suction trap (group II). The patient populations in each group were similar; there were no differences in terms of age, gender, comorbid medical conditions, or prior medical therapy. Cultures were considered contaminated if they yielded normal nasal flora or if rare or few Staphylococcus coagulase-negative colonies grew after no bacteria was identified in gram stain. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus coagulase-negative, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the three most common organisms in both groups., Results: Gram-negative bacteria were noted in 21/60 (35%) positive cultures. Although the contamination rate of the suction aspiration group (14%) was less than the endoscopic swab group (10%), this did not approach statistical significance (p = 0.75)., Conclusions: Data from this study suggest that endoscopically guided aspiration of pathological material is no better than properly obtained swabs in directing antimicrobial therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis.