Background Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature. Objective Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020. Results Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages ( P < .001). Conclusions In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

Background Previous studies and meta analyses have led to incongruent and incomplete results respectively when total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA) are compared in endoscopic sinus surgeries in regards to intraoperative bleeding and visibility. Objective To perform a more comprehensive meta-analysis on randomized controlled trial (RCTs) comparing TIVA with IA in endoscopic sinus surgery to evaluate their effects on intraoperative bleeding and visibility. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing TIVA and IA in endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis was completed in May 2020. Utilizing databases, articles were systematically screened for analysis and 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. The primary outcome included intraoperative visibility scores combining Boezaart, Wormald and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included rate of blood loss (mL/kg/min), estimated total blood loss (mL), Boezaart, Wormald scores, VAS, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure (MAP). Results 19 RCTs with 1,010 patients were analyzed. TIVA had a significantly lower intraoperative bleeding score indicating better endoscopic visibility (Boezaart, VAS, and Wormald) than IA (−0.514, p = 0.020). IA had a significantly higher average rate of blood loss than TIVA by 0.563 mL/kg/min (p = 0.016). Estimated total blood loss was significantly lower in TIVA than IA (−0.853 mL, p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between TIVA and IA in the mean heart rate (−0.225, p = 0.63) and MAP values (−0.126, p = 0.634). The subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference between TIVA and IA when remifentanil was not utilized and whenever desflurane was the IA agent. Conclusion TIVA seemed to have superior intraoperative visibility scores and blood loss during endoscopic sinus surgery when compared to IA. However, the results are not consistent when stratifying the results based on the use of remifentanil and different inhaled anesthetics. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be made that one approach is superior to the other.

Objectives The h-index is a measure of research output and contribution that shows strong correlation with academic promotion in medicine. The purpose of this article is to clearly explain how h-index scores are calculated and how otolaryngologists can effectively and advantageously use these scores for their career development. Data Sources PubMed. Review Methods We performed an up-to-date PubMed literature review describing the design of the h-index and how to use it effectively along with its role in academic medicine, including otolaryngology. Conclusions H-index scores are used as a metric for scientific output that considers the number of publications and the number of times each is cited. Search engines can automatically calculate h-index scores for one’s work. Studies also revealed significant positive correlations that the h-index has from fellowship involvement, which could be beneficial for career advancement in academic medicine. Implications for Practice Aspiring academic otolaryngologists should create a research profile to link and calculate the h-index for publications, submit to well-read high-impact journals for increased viewership and citations, and expand on foundational and personal research topics. Future studies should evaluate faculty and resident awareness of h-indices in the otolaryngology department to see how we can further address any underlying barriers. Otolaryngologists with the knowledge and tools necessary to maximize h-index scores and produce high-quality research in modern-day medicine not only provide potential advantages in career development but also bring significant contribution to the field of otolaryngology and patient care.

Background Social media continues to grow as a relevant information source for the lay public and medical professionals. Methods A search of posts on Facebook and Instagram was conducted using the hashtag #laryngectomy. Posts were categorized based upon perspective, media type, timeframe, topic, tone, and popularity. Results Final analysis included 929 Instagram posts and 355 Facebook posts. Most Facebook posts were made by companies (38%) and physicians (17%) with information (30%) and advertisements (22%) being common topics. Patients (40%) were the largest group of Instagram authors with lifestyle (39%) being the most common topic. Greater than 90% of posts were either neutral or positive in tone across both platforms. Conclusions Patient perspective was most commonly represented on Instagram, whereas Facebook more commonly included posts by physicians and companies. The majority of posts carried a neutral or positive tone, which is consistent with positive quality of life patients have shown postoperatively.