IMPORTANCEThe opioid epidemic has generated interest in optimizing opioid prescribing after common surgeries. Recent studies have shown a broad range of analgesic prescription patterns following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of different analgesic regimens after ESS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multi-institutional, nonblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 tertiary centers across the US and Canada and included participants who underwent ESS for acute or chronic rhinosinusitis. The study was conducted from March 2019 to March 2020, and the data were analyzed in November to December 2020.INTERVENTIONS All participants received acetaminophen, 650 mg, as the first-line analgesic. From there, patients were randomized to either oxycodone rescue (oxycodone, 5 mg, as second-line therapy) or ibuprofen rescue (ibuprofen, 600 mg, as second-line therapy, with oxycodone, 5 mg, reserved for breakthrough pain).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Baseline characteristics and disease severity were collected at enrollment. Medication logs, pain scores, and epistaxis measures were collected until postoperative day 7. The primary outcome was the postoperative visual analog scale score for pain. Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity and Pain Interference Scores were also collected. RESULTS A total of 118 patients were randomized (62 [52.5%] oxycodone rescue, 56 [47.5%] ibuprofen rescue; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [16.3] years; 44 women [44.0%]; 83 White [83.0%], 7 Black [7.0%], and 7 Asian individuals [7.0%]). After exclusions for loss to follow-up and noncompliance, 51 remained in the oxycodone rescue group and 49 in the ibuprofen rescue group. The groups had similar demographic characteristics and disease severity. Thirty-two (63%) in the oxycodone rescue group had adequate pain management with acetaminophen only, while 19 (37%) consumed at least 1 oxycodone dose. In the ibuprofen rescue group, 18 (16%) required only acetaminophen, 28 (57%) used only acetaminophen and ibuprofen, and the remaining 13 (26%) consumed 1 or more oxycodone doses. The groups had similar average acetaminophen (9.69 vs 7.96 doses; difference, 1.73; 95% CI, -1.37 to 4.83) and oxycodone (1.89 vs 0.77 doses; difference, 1.13; 95% CI, -0.11 to 2.36) use. Both groups had similar postoperative visual analog scale scores. A subanalysis that compared opioids users with nonusers showed clinically significant lower pain scores in nonusers at multiple postoperative points. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, most patients who underwent ESS could be treated postoperatively using a nonopioid regimen of either acetaminophen alone or acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Ibuprofen as a second-line therapy did not reduce overall narcotic consumption, but the overall narcotic use was low in both groups.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03783702

Objectives To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non-FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the pediatric population. Data Source Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategy, including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles. Review Methods A structured literature search was conducted. Extracted data included age, population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and growth velocity adverse events. Results A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as nasal sprays and drops. There were no persistent abnormalities noted in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Growth velocity reduction was reported in 3 of 10 randomized trials. Meta-analysis of epistaxis and headache showed no significant difference in the incidence of headache or epistaxis when FDA-approved INCSs were compared to placebo, with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.77-1.63; P = .56) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.18; P = .32), respectively. Meta-analysis was not performed for growth velocity, HPA axis suppression, and ocular change. Conclusions INCSs in FDA-approved routes of administration are generally safe to use in the pediatric population. Use of non-FDA-approved INCS drops may increase risk of iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome. Growth velocity reduction, HPA axis suppression, and visual changes due to INCS are uncommon.

Background The objective of this study is to determine whether the infiltration of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in addition to topical application of 1:1000 epinephrine significantly improves surgical field grading scale score over topical 1:1000 epinephrine alone. Methods A prospective, double‐blind, randomized, controlled study was performed of 40 patients undergoing bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive infiltration with 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine on 1 side of the nasal cavity vs plain saline on the other side in preparation for ESS. Both groups received topical application of 1:1000 epinephrine. Surgical videos were recorded and Wormald surgical field grading scale was assigned by 2 blinded reviewers. The number of extra 1:1000 epinephrine pledgets used during the surgery, estimated blood loss, and surgical duration were also recorded. Results There were no statistically significant differences in Wormald surgical field grading scale, number of extra pledgets used, or estimated blood loss between the nasal cavity side infiltrated with 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine in comparison to infiltration with saline. The side infiltrated with 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine had a reduced operative time compared to the side infiltrated with saline (p = 0.002). There were no differences in postoperative bleeding from questionnaire completed by patient at the first postoperative visit. Conclusion Addition of infiltration of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 to topical application of epinephrine 1:1000 for preparation of ESS does not significantly improve surgical field of view compared to topical epinephrine alone.

No abstract