Abstract Objective: Sleep is fundamental for both health and wellness. The advent of “on a chip” and “smartphone” technologies have created an explosion of inexpensive, at-home applications and devices specifically addressing sleep health and sleep disordered breathing. Sleep-related smartphone Applications and devices are offering diagnosis, management, and treatment of a variety of sleep disorders, mainly obstructive sleep apnea. New technology requires both a learning curve and a review of reliability. Our objective was to evaluate which app have scientific publications as well as their potential to help in the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of sleep disordered breathing. Methods: We search for relevant sleep apnea related apps on both the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. In addition, an exhaustive literature search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBase, web of science and Scopus for works of apps or devices that have published in the scientific literature and have been used in a clinical setting for diagnosis or treatment of sleep disordered breathing performing a systematic review. Results: We found 10 smartphone apps that met the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: The development of these apps and devices has a great future, but today are not as accurate as other traditional options. This new technology offers accessible, inexpensive, and continuous at home data monitoring of obstructive sleep apnea, but still does not count with proper testing and their validation may be unreliable.

Abstract Introduction The novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has rapidly spread worldwide, challenging healthcare resources and communities to an unprecedent degree. Simultaneously, the amount of clinical and scientific information released has overwhelmed journal platforms. Objectives This review aims to summarize the available diagnostic tools and current guidelines to safely assist patients while limiting the exposure of otolaryngologists during this pandemic. Data Synthesis Key articles were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, Lancet, Springer Nature, BioMed Central, JAMA network and MEDLINE, as well as updated documents from the Spanish Ministry of Health, World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Spanish Association of Surgeons, ENT-UK, American College of Surgeons, and American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The terms used for the search were: COVID-19, Test COVID, Surgery in COVID, 2019-nCoV, ‘coronavirus’, and SARS-CoV-2. A total of 10,245 papers were retrieved. The inclusion criteria for the review included: COVID-19 testing (n = 531), society guidelines for otolaryngology-head and neck surgery patient care in the outpatient clinic (n = 10) and surgical (n = 18) settings. Studies not related to COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded. Conclusion Healthcare institutions around the world are outlining their own protocols regarding laboratory testing and personnel protective equipment usage based upon medical societies recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have summarized the available laboratory tests and their respective sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, clinical guidelines from different societies were reviewed and summarized to facilitate guidance for otolaryngologists in the operating room and in the clinical settings.

Abstract Introduction Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a highly prevalent pathology in our society. Due to the prevalence of this condition and to the persisting symptoms despite an appropriate medical treatment, surgical techniques are often required. Lately, minimal invasive techniques have been described, such as lacrimal diversion devices (LDDs). This technique offers a fast and convenient choice for delivery of sinus irrigation and topical medication. Objective We aimed to describe our experience with LDDs and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the procedure in patients with moderate to severe CRS without nasal polyposis (CRSsNP) and persistent symptomatology despite medical therapy. Methods A total of 7 patients underwent bilateral lacrimal stents placement in the operating room. A retrospective observational study was conducted. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 (SNOT-20) survey was performed and the score obtained was compared before and 1 month after the procedure. Results The LDDs were used for an average of 80 days. During the follow-up, only three patients had a mild complication with the device (granuloma in the punctum, obstruction, and early extrusion). The mean baseline SNOT-20 score dropped significantly (p = 0.015) from 25.85 to 11.57 (mean: - 14.29) 1 month after the procedure. Conclusion According to our experience and results, the use of LDD is a novel, feasible, and less invasive technique to treat refractory CRS. It reduces the risk of mucosal stripping, provides short-term outcomes, and the surgical procedure does not require advanced training in endoscopic sinus surgery. Moreover, it can be performed in-office under local anesthesia or sedation.