OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to verify the correlation of endoscopically directed middle meatal (EDMM) cultures with maxillary sinus tap and culture (MST) in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of the previous literature, unpublished data, and a prospective trial supported by the Sinus & Allergy Health Partnership. EDMM and MST cultures were obtained and their results compared. Inclusion for both the unpublished and prospective trial as well as prior published literature in the meta-analysis required the studies to compare EDMM versus MST in the acute setting of bacterial rhinosinusitis with both symptomatic and radiologic evidence of ABRS. RESULTS: Three articles and 1 national presentation were identified for inclusion. Additional data from unpublished studies and the prospective trial were combined. The pooled data consisted of 126 patients with 131 culture pairs. For known pathogenic bacteria for ABRS and in comparison to MST, EDMM had a sensitivity of 80.9%, a specificity of 90.5%, a positive predictive value of 82.6%, a negative predictive value of 89.4%, and an overall accuracy of 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 81.3%-92.8%); 70.5% (12/17) of false positive culture pairs were of known pathogens for ABRS that would not be expected to be contaminants. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-analysis shows that EDMM is a highly sensitive and accurate culture method for acute ABRS and may be more sensitive than MST given the presence of pathogenic bacteria not found on antral lavage. EDMM is a viable, and possibly preferred, culture method for determining antimicrobial efficacy and bacterial resistance patterns. EBM RATING: A-1a.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to verify the correlation of endoscopically directed middle meatal (EDMM) cultures with maxillary sinus tap and culture (MST) in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of the previous literature, unpublished data, and a prospective trial supported by the Sinus & Allergy Health Partnership. EDMM and MST cultures were obtained and their results compared. Inclusion for both the unpublished and prospective trial as well as prior published literature in the meta-analysis required the studies to compare EDMM versus MST in the acute setting of bacterial rhinosinusitis with both symptomatic and radiologic evidence of ABRS. RESULTS: Three articles and 1 national presentation were identified for inclusion. Additional data from unpublished studies and the prospective trial were combined. The pooled data consisted of 126 patients with 131 culture pairs. For known pathogenic bacteria for ABRS and in comparison to MST, EDMM had a sensitivity of 80.9%, a specificity of 90.5%, a positive predictive value of 82.6%, a negative predictive value of 89.4%, and an overall accuracy of 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 81.3%-92.8%); 70.5% (12/17) of false positive culture pairs were of known pathogens for ABRS that would not be expected to be contaminants. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-analysis shows that EDMM is a highly sensitive and accurate culture method for acute ABRS and may be more sensitive than MST given the presence of pathogenic bacteria not found on antral lavage. EDMM is a viable, and possibly preferred, culture method for determining antimicrobial efficacy and bacterial resistance patterns. EBM RATING: A-1a.
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Jin-Young Min; Jayakar V Nayak; Kathryn E Hulse; Whitney W Stevens; Paul A Raju; Julia H Huang; Lydia A Suh; Griet A Van Roey; James E Norton; Roderick G Carter; Caroline P E Price; Ava R Weibman; Ali R Rashan; Eliver E Ghosn; Zara M Patel; Tetsuya Homma; David B Conley; Kevin C Welch; Stephanie Shintani-Smith; Anju T Peters; Leslie C Grammer; Kathleen E Harris; Atsushi Kato; Peter H Hwang; Robert C Kern; Leonore A Herzenberg; Robert P Schleimer; Bruce K Tan Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Conner J Massey; Fernando Diaz Del Valle; Waleed M Abuzeid; Joshua M Levy; Sarina Mueller; Corrina G Levine; Stephanie S Smith; Benjamin S Bleier; Vijay R Ramakrishnan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Martin Desrosiers; Gerald A Evans; Paul K Keith; Erin D Wright; Alan Kaplan; Jacques Bouchard; Anthony Ciavarella; Patrick W Doyle; Amin R Javer; Eric S Leith; Atreyi Mukherji; R Robert Schellenberg; Peter Small; Ian J Witterick Journal: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 3.406
Authors: Stephanie S Smith; Elisabeth H Ference; Charlesnika T Evans; Bruce K Tan; Robert C Kern; Rakesh K Chandra Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Valin Rujanavej; Ethan Soudry; Niaz Banaei; Ellen Jo Baron; Peter H Hwang; Jayakar V Nayak Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.467
Authors: Jussi Virtanen; Lauri Hokkinen; Markus Karjalainen; Anton Kontunen; Risto Vuento; Jura Numminen; Markus Rautiainen; Niku Oksala; Antti Roine; Ilkka Kivekäs Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 2.503