Abstract Objectives: The benefit of corticosteroids following facial nerve neurorrhaphy in the setting of complete transection is questionable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate corticosteroid efficacy on facial nerve regeneration and functional recovery after complete disruption and neurorrhaphy. Methods: Randomized controlled trials on both human and animal models from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE studying corticosteroid efficacy in complete facial nerve disruption followed by neurorrhaphy were included. Data were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis. The outcomes were evaluated from electrophysiology, histology, and functional recovery. However, no randomized controlled trial in human was performed. Possibly, performing human trials with histopathology may not be feasible in clinical setting. Results: Six animal studies (248 participants) met inclusion criteria. Electrophysiologic outcomes revealed no differences in latency (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = −1.97, 95% CI −7.38 to 3.44, p = 0.47) and amplitude (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI −0.44 to 1.18, p = 0.37) between systemic corticosteroids and controls. When analysis compared topical corticosteroid and control, the results provided no differences in latency (Mean Difference (MD)=0.10, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.24, p = 0.16) and amplitude (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.10, p = 0.81). In histologic outcomes, the results showed no differences in axon diameter (MD = 0.13, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.41, p = 0.37) between systemic corticosteroid and control; however, the result in myelin thickness (MD = 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08, p < 0.05) favored control group. When comparing systemic corticosteroid with control in eye blinking, the results favored control (MD= 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06, p = 0.0004). Conclusions: This evidence did not show potential benefits of systemic or topical corticosteroid deliveries after facial nerve neurorrhaphy in complete transection when evaluating electrophysiologic, histologic, and functional recovery outcomes in animal models.

Resumo: Introdução: Os médicos se baseiam nas características clínicas para a escolha dos agentes terapêuticos para o tratamento da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae são agentes comuns na rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Streptococcus pneumoniae e Haemophilus influenzae resistentes a antibióticos requerem medicamentos diferentes. Objetivo: Avaliar as associações entre as características clínicas da rinossinusite bacteriana aguda e bactérias patogênicas. Método: O estudo incluiu 64 pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. Foram coletadas e registradas as características clínicas, inclusive obstrução nasal, secreção com cor alterada, dor facial, distúrbios do olfato, febre e achados laboratoriais de pacientes com rinossinusite bacteriana aguda. As culturas bacterianas obtidas por swab endoscópico do meato médio foram usadas como referência. Resultados: A elevação do nível sérico de proteína C-reativa estava correlacionada com a espécie bacteriana (p = 0,03); ela estava aumentada em 80,0% das rinossinusites por Haemophilus influenzae e em 57,1% das rinossinusites por Streptococcus pneumoniae. A proteína C-reativa elevada foi um significativo fator preditor de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae, com razão de probabilidade de 18,06 (IC 95% 2,36-138,20). A sensibilidade da elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa para o diagnóstico de rinossinusite por Haemophilus influenzae foi de 0,80 (IC 95% 0,49 ± 0,94). Conclusão: A elevação dos níveis séricos de proteína C-reativa é um preditor de rinossinusite bacteriana aguda causada por Haemophilus influenzae.

Abstract Introduction: Clinicians rely on clinical presentations to select therapeutic agents for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are common in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Drug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae require different antibiotics. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between clinical features of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and pathogenic bacteria. Methods: Sixty-four patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Clinical features including nasal obstruction, discolored discharge, facial pain, smell disturbance, fever and laboratory findings of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis were collected. The bacterial cultures of endoscopic middle meatal swabs were used as a reference. Results: Serum C-reactive protein level elevation correlated with the bacterial species (p = 0.03), by which was increased in 80.0% of Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis and 57.1% of Streptococcus pneumoniae rhinosinusitis. The elevated C-reactive protein was the significant predictor for Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis with the Odds Ratio of 18.06 (95% CI 2.36-138.20). The sensitivity of serum C-reactive protein level elevation for diagnosing Haemophilus influenzae rhinosinusitis was 0.80 (95% CI 0.49-0.94). Conclusion: Elevation of serum C-reactive protein level was associated with and predicted acute bacterial rhinosinusitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae.