Objective Our review aims to summarize the current literature on skull base infections (SBIs) and retrospectively analyze any such cases encountered at our institution. Design A literature search was conducted using online databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and ResearchGate with the terms “skull base osteomyelitis,” “temporal bone osteomyelitis,” “skull base infections,” “necrotizing otitis media,” and “SBO”. References from the resulting manuscripts were reviewed for relevant articles. A search of our electronic health records using the same key terms was also performed to identify patients with a tissue biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of skull base infections. Patients with an indeterminate diagnosis or inaccessible/poor imaging were excluded. Setting A level one trauma and major tertiary academic medical center. Participants All patients treated at the University of California Davis Health System with a confirmed diagnosis of skull base infections from January 2005 to November 2020. Main Outcome Measures Imaging results, symptoms, treatment, morbidity, and mortality. Results Our literature search yielded 59 articles ranging from 1982 to 2021. A retrospective search of our electronic health records identified two cases of skull base infections. Conclusion Skull base infections have no pathognomonic findings. A multimodal approach with computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear medicine is necessary to characterize the disease process in addition to a biopsy for definitive diagnosis. Other diagnoses can mimic SBI on imaging, such as nasopharyngeal carcinoma and inflammatory pseudotumor. Culture-guided antimicrobial treatment and surgery are mainstay therapies. Other adjuvant strategies currently lack the robust evidence necessary to characterize their risks and benefits.

Looking back on the 23-year renovation of the state economic institution, between the years 1992 and 2015 (which is supposedly completed basically) will clarify some issues of theory and practice concerning the state-owned model in the condition of Vietnam’s transitional economy. This innovation process is performed through the privatisation of state enterprises, the establishment of economic corporations and state general firms, then the equitisation of all corporations, general companies and state businesses in 2015. Some arising problems should have a discussion involving the key role of the state economy in practice; which administration model is proper; and whether or not the state economic reform is regarded as the necessary measure for the efficient social-economic development.