Purpose: Sinonasal nuclear protein in testis carcinoma (SNUTC) is a rare, aggressive malignancy caused by genetic rearrangements in the NUTM1 gene. The prognosis of SNUTC ranks among the most unfavorable within the naso-sinusal district, with an overall survival of 9.7 months. This systematic review aimed to determine the best therapeutic strategy for SNUTC. Methods: We reviewed eligible articles for patient demographics, TNM and stage at presentation, best response after primary treatment, disease-free survival and overall survival (OS) times, other following therapy lines, and final outcomes. Results: Among 472 unique citations, 17 studies were considered eligible, with reported treatment data for 25 patients. Most studies (n = 12) were case reports. The most frequently administered treatment regimen was surgery as primary treatment and combined radiochemotherapy as second-line or adjuvant treatment. Four patients were alive at follow-up. Conclusion: Basing on the existing literature, a standardized line in the treatment of SNUTC is not yet well delineated. A self-personalized strategy of therapy should be drawn on each patient affected by SNUTC.

Purpose: Trauma is a common cause of facial nerve palsy, accounting for 3% of all cases. While many facial palsies resolve with medical treatment, some require surgical intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine the best therapeutic strategy for traumatic facial palsy. Methods: We reviewed eligible articles for patient demographics, pre-treatment assessment, parameters of selected treatment, type of treatment, outcomes, and post-treatment assessment. Results: Among 135 unique citations, 32 studies were considered eligible, reporting treatment data for 2079 patients. Most studies (n = 30) were case series. The main proposed therapeutic strategies were medical, surgical, or a combination of both. For almost all the selected studies, the House-Brackmann (HB) scale was used to estimate the severity of facial palsy. Conclusion: Based on the existing literature, a standardized guideline for the treatment of traumatic facial palsy is not well delineated, due to the extreme heterogeneity of available therapeutic choices and the lack of standardized patient stratification.

Nasal cytology is a non-invasive, low-cost exam that can help physicians in the diagnosis of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, discriminating between different nasal disorders. The aim of this review is to summarize and analyze the current knowledge about nasal cytological examination in head and neck cancer, with a specific focus on the effects of different treatments. Indeed, nasal cytology is important to choose the best treatment for nasal complaints in each patient. A review of the English literature (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane) was performed (5404 records screened). The inclusion criteria were clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, case series, and case reports regarding nasal cytology in head and neck cancer treatment. Exclusion criteria were as follows: non-human studies, non-English literature, non-cytological evaluations. Two independent reviewers, working separately, extracted the data from all the eligible studies, which were subsequently cross-checked. Five studies were included in qualitative synthesis: three assessed mucosal disorders after radiation therapy and two after total laryngectomy. Radiotherapy can determine mucous or squamous cell metaplasia and neutrophil inflammation. Laryngectomees show hyperplasia of the basal zone cells and mucous cell metaplasia, and they do not develop inflammatory changes. The main limitation of this review is the low number and heterogeneity of studies present in the literature. In conclusion, nasal cytology is useful and allows for identifying mucosal disorders of the nasal cavities after surgery and/or radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. This can help physicians to better treat the nasal complaints of such patients.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). It often involves the gastrointestinal tract, head and neck, and skin, but virtually any tissue or organ can be affected. The primary NHL of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses are extremely rare, causing diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman with a 4-week history of diplopia and right superior eyelid swelling. Clinical, radiological, and histological examination led to the diagnosis of DLBCL of the right frontal sinus with anterior invasion of subcutaneous soft tissues and posterior intracranial involvement of the frontal region. She underwent three cycles of MATRIX chemotherapy, three cycles of R-DA-EPOCH, and CAR-T therapy. Unfortunately, treatments were unsuccessful and the patient died 11 months after diagnosis. In conclusion, an early diagnosis of DLBCL of the frontal sinus is difficult as it is often confused with other nasal pathologies. This causes a delay in treatment.

Background: To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI. Methods: ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other. Results: Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 (p < 0.05). In the squelch setting, group 1 showed a difference of 2.42 dB compared to 1.53 dB of group 2 (p = 0.85). In the head shadow setting, patients of group 1 reported a difference of 7.5 dB, compared to 4.61 dB of group 2 (p = 0.34). As for the APHAB questionnaire, group 1 reported a mean global score difference of 11.10% while group 2 showed a difference of −4.00%. Conclusions: Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.

Background: The Delphi method is increasingly used in otolaryngology to develop consensus in subjects lacking robust evidence. In these contexts, consensus documents play a dual role: they provide structured expert guidance while determining shared principles adaptable to the individual patient. Nevertheless, the methodological rigor and reporting consistency of Delphi studies remain variable, raising concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and potential bias. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for Delphi-based consensus studies in otolaryngology. Fully published studies in English, Italian, German, French, or Spanish were included. Each article was assessed using established methodological frameworks for consensus development, bias domains described in the methodological literature, and the DELPHISTAR reporting checklist. Reliability and completeness scores were calculated to enable comparisons. Results: Out of 3168 unique records, 86 studies were included. Most defined their purpose and consensus criteria, but transparency regarding panel selection, anonymity, feedback, and criteria for stopping the consensus process was often missing. Based on methodological bias domains, only 9 studies (10.5%) reached a “good” reliability score, while the majority were rated as “fair.” According to DELPHISTAR, just 3 studies (3.5%) showed good levels of completeness. Reporting completeness and risk of bias proved heterogeneous across subspecialties. Conclusions: Delphi-based studies are increasingly shaping clinical practice in otolaryngology, but persistent methodological and reporting limitations undermine their reliability. Wider adoption of standardized frameworks is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and clinical impact, ensuring that consensus statements support both evidence-informed practice and personalized patient care.