Central compartment atopic disease (CCAD) is a distinct phenotype within chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) with a pathophysiology that bridges the gap between allergy and CRSwNP, an association that was previously ambiguous. Understanding this endotype and its link to allergic disease is crucial for improved CCAD management. Using a systematic search and an independent dual-reviewer evaluation and data extraction process, this scoping review examines the clinical features, management options, and treatment outcomes of CCAD. Central compartment (CC) polypoid changes of the MT predominantly correlate with allergic rhinitis, increased septal inflammation, oblique MT orientation, and decreased nasal cavity opacification and Lund–Mackay scores compared to other CRSwNP subtypes. CCAD patients also exhibit higher rates of asthma, allergen sensitization, and hyposmia or anosmia. Surgical outcomes, including revision rate and SNOT-22 improvement, are favorable in CCAD as well. In conclusion, CCAD primarily affects atopic individuals and is managed using endoscopic sinus surgery combined with treating the underlying allergy. Continued research is needed to further refine understanding and develop optimal treatment strategies of this emerging CRS subtype.

Objective: To evaluate new medical devices and drugs pertinent to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021.Data Sources: Publicly available FDA device and drug approvals from ENT (ear, nose, and throat), anesthesia, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, and general surgery FDA committees.Review Methods: FDA device and therapeutic approvals were identified and reviewed by members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery’s Medical Devices and Drugs Committee. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of devices and drugs to otolaryngologists. Medical devices and drugs were then allocated to their respective subspecialty fields for critical review based on available scientific literature.Conclusions: The Medical Devices and Drugs Committee reviewed 1153 devices and 52 novel drugs that received FDA approval in 2021 (67 ENT, 106 anesthesia, 618 general surgery and plastic surgery, 362 neurosurgery). Twenty‐three devices and 1 therapeutic agent relevant to otolaryngology were included in the state of the art review. Advances spanned all subspecialties, including over‐the‐counter hearing aid options in otology, expanding treatment options for rhinitis in rhinology, innovative laser‐safe endotracheal tubes in laryngology, novel facial rejuvenation and implant technology in facial plastic surgery, and advances in noninvasive and surgical treatment options for obstructive sleep apnea.Implications for Practice: FDA approvals for new technology and pharmaceuticals present new opportunities across subspecialties in otolaryngology. Clinicians’ nuanced understanding of the safety, advantages, and limitations of these innovations ensures ongoing progress in patient care.

One year ago, shortly after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we published our initial experience with telemedicine. We showed that during the early pandemic, there was a dramatic shift to telemedicine and that 70% of our patients would decline telemedicine in favor of an in-person visit. As clinical limitations and stay-at-home orders relaxed, we sought to define how we have used telemedicine since. After the initial month of the pandemic, our utilization of telemedicine fell to an average of only 5% of visits over the past year. Nearly 80% of all telemedicine visits were routine follow-up visits, with its usage being unaffected by local policy and pandemic surges. The usefulness and applications of telemedicine have been well described; however, after our initial reliance on telemedicine, its use has been minimal. Moving forward, attention will need to focus on innovation and expanding comprehensive virtual examinations for otolaryngology to fully embrace this technology.

Objectives: This study aims to compare the prevalence of cost and non‐cost barriers to healthcare access among sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients and non‐SGM patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).Methods: The All of Us Research Program was queried for CRS patients, defined as having at least two diagnoses of chronic sinusitis (ICD10: J32.x). Patients were categorized based on questions regarding gender identity, biological sex, and self‐descriptions. The primary outcome was cost and non‐cost barriers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine SGM status and experiencing barriers to care.Results: 7708 patients with CRS were included; 595 were SGM and 7113 were non‐SGM. SGM patients were significantly more likely to delay primary care (AOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.09–2.11), specialist care (AOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.18–2.00), mental healthcare (AOR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.29–2.24), and filling prescription medication (AOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03–1.66). Regarding non‐cost barriers, SGM patients were significantly more likely to delay care because of transportation problems (AOR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.39–2.42), their provider having a different background (AOR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.14–1.90) and due to a lack of respect by their providers (AOR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.16–1.73).Conclusion: SGM patients with CRS report multiple cost and non‐cost barriers. While differences between CRS and non‐CRS groups were modest, rhinologists and other healthcare practitioners treating SGM patients with CRS should be mindful of these disparities to address these barriers at a patient and system level.Level of Evidence: Level III, 2025.