Comprehensive management of patients presenting to the otolaryngologist for sinus pressure, pain, or headache.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS To study differential diagnosis and efficacy of management strategies in patients presenting to an otolaryngologist for sinus pressure, pain, or headache. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective analysis at an academic medical center. METHODS Patients were seen in the clinic (2010-2012) for sinus-related headache, pressure, pain or fullness (study symptoms) by a rhinologist. A retrospective chart review of patients with study symptoms was conducted. RESULTS Of 211 patients with study symptoms, 70.62% met American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery criteria for sinusitis or had rhinologic disease. Otolaryngic therapy alone (medical or surgical) relieved study symptoms in 51.66%; combined neurology intervention helped another 15.17%. Nearly half of the patients (48.82%) were diagnosed with primary headache disorders. Comorbid rhinologic-neurologic disease was present in 27.96% and odontogenic disease in 7%. Initial otolaryngology referral was likely unnecessary for 36.49% of the study patients. Sinus computed tomography (CT) was available for 91% of 211 patients, and 80% of scans were positive. Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) was used in only 80/211 patients (37.69%) and was effective in 66/211 (31.28%). ESS was most successful in patients receiving concurrent neurological intervention. The Lund-Mackay CT score did not predict outcomes from ESS. Interdisciplinary otolaryngology-neurology efforts resulted in a positive outcome for 92.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS We present the first series detailing management of patients with sinus-headache pain in an otolaryngology practice. Such symptoms have multifactorial etiologies. Positive sinus CT results require cautious interpretation. ESS should be judiciously used. Interdisciplinary care is critical for success: approximately 50% of patients benefited from otolaryngic management, 50% needed neurological treatment, and 7% required dental disease management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.