The incidence of infectious maxillary sinusitis (IMS) and its clinical relevance was prospectively studied in 162 consecutive critically ill patients who were mechanically ventilated for a period longer than 7 d. All had a paranasal computed tomographic (CT) scan within 48 h of admission and were divided into three groups according to the radiologic aspect of their maxillary sinuses: Group 1 = normal maxillary sinuses (n = 40), Group 2 = maxillary mucosal thickening (n = 26), Group 3 = radiologic maxillary sinusitis (RMS) defined as the presence of an air fluid level and/or opacification of maxillary sinuses (n = 96). Group 1 patients were randomized between nasal and oral endotracheal intubation with a gastric intubation performed via the same route and had a second paranasal CT scan 7 d later. Endotracheal and gastric tubes were left in their original position in Group 2 patients and a second paranasal CT scan was performed 7 d later. All patients of Group 3 underwent a transnasal puncture for bacteriologic analysis of maxillary sinus content. Forty-five spontaneously breathing patients served as a control group. In all patients with RMS, the occurrence of bronchopneumonia (BPN) was prospectively assessed for 7 d following the initial CT scan. Upon inclusion, only 25% of the patients had normal maxillary sinuses whereas all patients in the control group had normal paranasal CT scans. After 7 d, 46% of Group 2 patients had evidence of RMS. Risk factors for RMS were nasal placement and duration of endotracheal and gastric intubation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

We determined whether immunostaining for mucins could provide a better characterization of salivary gland mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC). We investigated 63 MECs by immunohistochemistry for MUC1, MUC2, MUC4, and MUC5AC. Mucin expressing cell types and labeling patterns were recorded. The results were compared with microscopic grade, tumor-associated lymphoid infiltrate, mucin expression in surrounding salivary glands, clinical features, and outcome. MUC1 and MUC4 labeled the apical membrane of glandular tumor cells and the entire membrane of intermediate, clear, and epidermoid tumor cells. MUC2 and MUC5AC were expressed in the cytoplasm of glandular, mucous, and intermediate tumor cells. In contrast to MUC1, MUC4 expression decreased with tumor grade (P , 0.01). Unlike MUC2, MUC5AC was expressed in more than 50% of high-grade tumors, including 2 cases that were not stained with Alcian blue. MUC1 and MUC5AC were associated with tumor-associated lymphoid infiltrates (P , 0.05), but not with tumor-associated lymphoid follicles. The proportions of tumors expressing mucins were 71% for MUC1, 21% for MUC2, 79% for MUC4, and 68% for MUC5AC. MUC1 and MUC5AC were more frequently expressed in tumors than in surrounding glands (P , 0.0001). MUC1 expression correlated with shorter progression-free survival (P , 0.05). In conclusion, mucin expression in MEC differs from that in salivary glands. Intermediate cells express MUC1 and MUC4 all along their cell surface and MUC2 and MUC5AC in their cytoplasm. Staining for MUC5AC in high-grade tumors can be helpful for distinguishing high-grade MEC from squamous cell carcinoma. While MUC4 is related to tumor differentiation, MUC1 expression indicates a worse prognosis. (Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:881-889) O verall, salivary gland cancers make up approximately 3%of all head and neck malignancies. 28 Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is the most common histologic type of salivary gland cancer. 10 MEC is unique in that it demonstrates a broad spectrum of aggressiveness from indolent tumors that are cured by surgery alone to aggressive neoplasms that are prone to local invasion, recurrence, and metastasis. 28 Mucins are large, highly glycosylated proteins recognized by their repeat tandem domains, which are rich in serine and threonine sites for O-glycosylation. 8 Based on sequence homologies, two main families of MUC genes can be distinguished: (i) the MUC genes at locus 11p15, which encode secreted gel-forming mucins (MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC5B, MUC6); and (ii) the MUC genes at loci 7q22, 3q, and 1q21, encoding mainly membrane-bound mucins.Cancer cells may express aberrant forms or amounts of mucins. 13 Secreted gel-forming mucins show patterns of expression that are restricted to secretory organs and cell types. Aberrant expression of secreted mucins is observed in many adenocarcinomas. For instance, 30% of gastric carcinomas express the intestinal mucin MUC2. 15 Secreted mucin expression profiles of adenocarcinomas have been related to etiology, 16 tumor progression, 2 prognosis, 15,21 and histo...

ObjectiveTo determine whether saccadic velocity in the suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) test is a reliable indicator of vestibular loss at the acute and at the chronic stage in patients suffering from different vestibular pathologies.MethodsThirty-five normal subjects and 57 patients suffering from different vestibular pathologies associated with unilateral vestibular loss (UVL) or bilateral vestibular loss (BVL) were tested in the SHIMPs paradigm. SHIMPs were performed by turning the head 10 times at high velocities to the left or right side, respectively. The patients were instructed to fixate on a red spot generated by a head-fixed laser projected on the wall. In this SHIMPs paradigm, healthy subjects made a large anti-compensatory saccade at the end of the head turn (a SHIMP saccade). The peak saccadic velocity, the percentage of the trials completed with saccades in 10 trials, and the latency of the saccades were quantified in each group. A video-head impulse test (v-HIT) was systematically performed in all of our subjects as well as a caloric test. The dizziness handicap inventory questionnaire was also given to chronic UVL and BVL patients.ResultsAt the acute stage after a complete UVL, patients had zero or a few anti-compensatory saccades for low velocity head turns toward the lesioned side. These saccades had lower velocity than the anti-compensatory saccades recorded during head rotation toward the intact side and/or compared with the saccades measured in control subjects. At the chronic stage, some of the patients recovered the ability to perform SHIMP saccades at each head turn toward the lesioned side, but very often these saccades were of significantly lower velocity. In BVL patients, no anti-compensatory saccades, or only significantly smaller ones, could be detected for head turns to both sides.ConclusionSHIMP is a specific and sensitive test to detect a complete horizontal canal loss at the acute stage. In addition, it reflects the ability of patients with moderate horizontal vestibulo–ocular reflex gain decrease to generate anti-compensatory saccades in the chronic stage. In association with v-HIT, it allows determination of the residual vestibular function and to detect anti-compensatory saccades.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate the clinical utility of VEMPs in patients suffering from unilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS) and to determine the optimal stimulation parameter (air conducted sound, bone conducted vibration) for evaluating the function of the vestibular nerve.MethodsData were obtained in 63 patients with non-operated VS, and 20 patients operated on VS. Vestibular function was assessed by caloric, cervical and ocular VEMP testing. 37/63 patients with conclusive ACS ocular VEMPs responses were studied separately.ResultsIn the 63 non-operated VS patients, cVEMPs were abnormal in 65.1% of patients in response to AC STB and in 49.2% of patients to AC clicks. In the 37/63 patients with positive responses from the unaffected side, oVEMPs were abnormal in 75.7% of patients with ACS, in 67.6% with AFz and in 56.8% with mastoid BCV stimulation. In 16% of the patients, VEMPs were the only abnormal test (normal caloric and normal hearing). Among the 26 patients who did not show oVEMP responses on either side with ACS, oVEMPs responses could be obtained with AFz (50%) and with mastoid stimulation (89%).ConclusionsThe VEMP test demonstrated significant clinical value as it yielded the only abnormal test results in some patients suffering from a unilateral vestibular schwannoma. For oVEMPs, we suggest that ACS stimulation should be the initial test. In patients who responded to ACS and who had normal responses, BCV was not required. In patients with abnormal responses on the affected side using ACS, BCV at AFz should be used to confirm abnormal function of the superior vestibular nerve. In patients who exhibited no responses on either side to ACS, BCV was the only approach allowing assessment of the function of the superior vestibular nerve. We favor using AFz stimulation first because it is easier to perform in clinical practice than mastoid stimulation.