4.5 Article

Correlation between bacterial biofilms and osteitis in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages 1071-1077

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24424

Keywords

confocal scanning laser microscopy; osteitis; biofilms; Chronic rhinosinusitis

Funding

  1. Zhengzhou University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/Hypothesis Bacterial biofilms (BBF) and osteitis are potential contributors to the local inflammatory load in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study investigated the relationship between BBF and osteitis status in CRS patients. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods Eighty-four CRS patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery and 22 control patients were enrolled in this study. Mucosal and bony samples from ethmoid sinus were obtained for confocal scanning laser microscopy and microscopic examination. Biofilm volume (BV), biofilm score (BS), histopathologic bony grade, Global Osteitis Scoring Scale (GOSS) score, and Hounsfield unit (HU) value on computed tomography were recorded. Associations between these parameters describing BBF and osteitis were assessed. Results The histopathologic bony grade 2 (0-3) versus 0 (0-3) (P < 0.001), GOSS score 4.5 (0-31) versus 0 (0-26) (P = 0.014) and HU value 431.5 (310-509) versus 354 (288-499) (P < 0.001) in patients with BBF were greater than those without BBF. The bony grade (r = 0.683, P < 0.001 and r = 0.664, P < 0.001), GOSS score (r = 0.314, P = 0.004 and r = 0.312, P = 0.004), and HU value (r = 0.539, P < 0.001 and r = 0.520, P < 0.001) were significantly increased with higher BV and BS. Conclusion A total of 84.8% of the bone underlying mucosa with BBF had some form of osteitis in ethmoid sinus, and approximately 46.4% of CRS patients were from a subgroup with both BBF and osteitis. The volume of BBF correlated well with severity of osteitis in CRS patients. Level of Evidence 3b. Laryngoscope, 124:1071-1077, 2014

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available