RESUMEN
Objectives Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with several known signs and symptoms, including olfactory disturbances leading to anosmia and parosmia. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical features of the emerging symptoms of post-COVID-19 parosmia and to report the outcome of commonly used intervention methods. Methods The study's sample included post-COVID-19 patients who complained of parosmia, presented to otorhinolaryngology clinics at private tertiary care hospitals from December 2020 to April 2021. Patients' data were collected from the hospital system and through direct phone interviews. The Modified Arabic 20-Items Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (MA-SNOT-20) was used to measure the severity of rhinosinusitis symptoms. Results Twenty-one patients were included in the study, and their ages mainly ranged between 20 and 39 years (76.2%), predominantly females 19 (90.5%). Post the COVID-19 illness course, nearly half of the patients (9; 42.9%) reported full recovery of olfaction and taste senses. Nine cases (42.9%) received treatment with intranasal and oral steroids, of which only three cases (14.3%) noticed improvement. The remaining 12 cases (57.1%) did not receive any treatment, two of which improved (9.5%). The maximum MA-SNOT score was 37 while the minimum was 3, and eight patients (38.1%) scores were between one and 10 points. Conclusion Olfactory and taste dysfunctions are common symptoms of COVID-19. The emerging symptom of parosmia is worth reporting in the literature to increase the awareness of this particular symptom in this pandemic era. Many management strategies have been introduced that might be effective. However, further studies are needed to establish evidence-based management protocols.
RESUMEN
Background Although choanal atresia (CA) was first described 250 years ago, its description and understanding remain incomplete, as is the distinction between unilateral and bilateral CA. Among the surgical techniques introduced to manage this condition are intranasal Hegar's dilator (IHD) and transnasal endoscopic excision (TNEE). Objectives This study retrospectively evaluated the outcomes and effectiveness of IHD and TNEE in the treatment of patients with CA, including differences in the incidence of re-stenosis with these techniques. Methods Patients diagnosed with CA who underwent surgical interventions in the Otolaryngology Department of Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, between 1997 and 2017 were analyzed. Postoperative outcomes including re-stenosis rates were compared in patients who underwent IHD and TNEE. Factors associated with patient outcomes were analyzed, including ages at diagnosis and surgery, nationality, gender, type of atresia (unilateral/bilateral and bony/membranous/mixed), surgical intervention (IHD or TNEE), and re-stenosis and need for revision surgery after IHD and TNEE. Results A total of 30 patients were diagnosed with CA, including 21 (70%) girls and 9 (30%) boys. Of them, 18 (60%) patients were diagnosed at younger than one month of age, 28 (93%) were Saudi nationals, and 20 (67.70%) were aged younger than three months at the time of surgery. Of these 30 patients, 17 (56.70%, all Saudi nationals) underwent IHD, and 13 (43.30%), including 15 Saudi nationals, underwent TNEE. The 17 patients who underwent IHD included 13 (76.50%) girls and 4 (23.50%) boys, whereas the 13 patients who underwent TNEE included 8 (61.50%) girls and 5 (38.50%) boys. Fifteen patients (50%) had mixed-type CA, nine (30%) had bony-type CA, and six (20%) had membranous-type CA. Twenty-six (86.67%) patients underwent primary surgery, whereas four (13.33%) underwent revision surgery; of the latter, three (75%) had undergone primary IHD, and one had undergone primary TNEE. Only one (3.33%) patient experienced re-stenosis after revision surgery, which consisted of IHD. Twelve patients (40%) underwent stenting, with one developing re-stenosis. The relationships between surgical approach and re-stenosis after primary and secondary surgery were not statistically significant. Conclusion The outcomes in patients with CA treated with IHD and TNEE are comparable. Rates of re-stenosis and need for revision surgery do not differ significantly in patients treated with these surgical approaches.