Otolaryngology Subspecialties Research Articles

Opioid Prescription Trends Among Sleep Surgeons in the United States.

This study aimed to describe trends in opioid prescriptions among US sleep surgeons between 2013 and 2021 via a retrospective analysis conducted using publicly available data. Utilizing the CMS part D database, we analyzed data from 82 sleep surgeons, focusing on metrics including number of opioid beneficiaries and claims, opioid cost, and opioid day supply per beneficiary. We employed statistical methods including ANOVA, t-tests, Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo Simulation, and regression models. There were no significant changes in the number of opioid claims (p = 0.782) or beneficiaries per provider (p = 0.590) nor was there a decrease in opioid day supply per beneficiary (p = 0.489) over time. Surgeons who graduated residency before 2000 prescribed significantly more opioids over the course of the study period compared to those graduating after 2000 with higher opioid day supply per beneficiary (13.34 vs. 7.42, p < 0.001), higher opioid beneficiaries per provider (21.62 vs. 19.36, p = 0.028), and higher opioid claims per provider (30.30 vs. 21.78, p < 0.001). A significant annual decrease in opioid cost per beneficiary (ANOVA, p = 0.006) was noted. This study illuminates a significant impact of provider years in practice on opioid prescribing trends, alongside a decreasing trend in opioid cost per beneficiary. Despite the evolving paradigm emphasizing opioid reduction and evidence of decreasing opioid prescriptions in other otolaryngology subspecialties, our findings depict that opioid prescriptions among sleep surgeons remained stable from 2013 to 2021. III Laryngoscope, 2024.

Otology and Audiology: Complications, Challenges, and Concerns in the Patient With Cleft Lip and/or Palate.

Cleft lip and/or palate, a treatable congenital condition, affects around 1 in 700 births, placing a large burden of care on those affected. A multidisciplinary approach to treating the patient involves not only cleft surgery but also a wide array of treatments and preventative therapies to prevent further disease. In this review, the otolaryngology subspecialties, otology and audiology, are discussed in relation to orofacial clefts. As patients with clefts carry a higher risk of permanent hearing loss and speech complications caused by the pathology of their cleft, management of additional diseases such as otitis media with effusion, conductive hearing loss, or infections requires timely evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. The current practice in otology and audiology is discussed with the challenges faced in delivering timely care-in any setting, low or higher income. Lack of consensus and controversies surrounding the use and timing of tympanostomy tubes are reviewed, as well as the palatoplasty types that show significant benefit for otitis media with effusion, audiometry, and speech outcomes. Lastly, a call for further research in clefts and otology and the urgency for its awareness and advocacy in low and middle-income countries is imperative.

Trends of female authorship in head and neck surgery publications over the last decade.

While other otolaryngology subspecialties have established female authorship trends, there is no comprehensive study within head and neck surgery (HNS). Five researchers recorded the gender identity of first and senior authors from HNS subspecialty papers (head and neck oncology, endocrine surgery, salivary gland pathology, and microsurgery) derived from 10 journals in otolaryngology and oncology in the years 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022. From 3457 articles, 6901 unique author identities were analyzed. Female authors represented 32% (N = 1103) of first authors and 20% (N = 690) of senior authors. Female authors were less likely to publish in microvascular and reconstructive surgery. Senior female authors were more likely to publish in higher impact journals than male senior authors, and first female authors had an increased likelihood of funding compared to their male counterparts. While female authors remain underrepresented in certain literature, we illustrate promising trends in productivity, funding allocation, and impact.

Insurance Status and Access to Otolaryngology Care: National Mystery Caller Study in the United States.

To investigate potential differences in new patient appointment wait times for otolaryngology care based on insurance types and explore factors influencing these wait times. A cross-sectional audit study, using a "mystery caller" approach, analyzed with a linear mixed Poisson model to adjust for confounding factors. A total of 612 physicians across 49 states and the District of Columbia, representing 6 otolaryngology subspecialties, were included. Otolaryngology physicians were contacted by mystery callers via telephone with scripted clinical vignettes as patients with either Medicaid or Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance. Callers requested next available appointment. Wait times for new patient appointments were recorded and analyzed in R using a generalized linear mixed Poisson model. A total of 1183 of 1224 calls reached a representative. Medicaid patients waited 5.73% longer (P < .001) compared to BCBS patients (IRR: 1.06; confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.09; P < .001), with respective mean wait times of 36.8 days (SE ± 1.6) and 32.4 days (SE ± 1.6). Longer waiting times were also associated with physicians affiliated with universities (P = .001) and certain subspecialties, such as pediatric otolaryngology (P < .001) and neurotology (P = .008). Regional differences were also observed, with specific AAO-HNS regions showing shorter wait times. The model achieved a conditional R-squared value of 0.947. This study reveals disparities in wait times for otolaryngology care based on insurance type, with extended wait times for Medicaid beneficiaries. The findings highlight a potential access to care disparity, which begets the need for strategies that ensure equitable access to otolaryngology care and further research to understand the underlying reasons for these potential disparities.

Enhancing Surgical Vision: Augmented Reality in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Augmented reality (AR) technology has become widely established in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Over the past 20 years, numerous AR systems have been investigated and validated across the subspecialties, both in cadaveric and in live surgical studies. AR displays projected through head-mounted devices, microscopes, and endoscopes, most commonly, have demonstrated utility in preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and improvement of surgical decision-making. Specifically, they have demonstrated feasibility in guiding tumor margin resections, identifying critical structures intraoperatively, and displaying patient-specific virtual models derived from preoperative imaging, with millimetric accuracy. This review summarizes both established and emerging AR technologies, detailing how their systems work, what features they offer, and their clinical impact across otolaryngology subspecialties. As AR technology continues to advance, its integration holds promise for enhancing surgical precision, simulation training, and ultimately, improving patient outcomes.

Gender distribution of Top Doctors in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.

Our study seeks to understand the profiles of otolaryngologists selected by Castle Connolly's Top Doctor list and how this compares to the entire field of otolaryngology. Top Doctor lists published in Castle Connolly affiliated magazines were analyzed for Otolaryngology, Otolaryngology/Facial Plastic Surgery, or Pediatric Otolaryngology physicians. Only lists published in 2021 or representing the 2021 Top Doctor lists were analyzed. Of the total 39 partnered magazines, 27 met our criteria. Information on the physician was analyzed from the Castle Connolly website and included: gender, education, faculty position, years as a Top Doctor, and certifications of each physician. 879 doctors, 742 (84%) men and 137 women (16%), were included in our analysis. 509 physicians completed a fellowship, 85 (62%) women and 424 (57%) men. The fellowship type varied significantly between gender (p = .002). 122 (14%) Top Doctors completed facial and plastic reconstructive surgery and 111 (91%) were men. Of the women Top Doctors completing a fellowship, 29 (34%) completed a fellowship in pediatric otolaryngology. A logistic regression found that men have an increased odds of being on the Top Doctors list for more years than females (OR: 1.36, p < .001). The percentage of women named as Top Doctors was less than the proportion of women in otolaryngology. This may be attributed to gender differences we found in fellowship type and certification. Further research into the role of otolaryngology subspecialties in selection of Top Doctors is needed to better understand gender differences.

A Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Analysis of Reimbursement Trends in Laryngology from 2000 to 2021.

The purpose of this study is to characterize Medicare reimbursement trends for laryngology procedures over the last two decades. This analysis used CMS' Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Look-Up Tool to determine the reimbursement rate of 48 common laryngology procedures, which were divided into four groups based on their practice setting and clinical use: office-based, airway, voice disorders, and dysphagia. The PFS reports the physician service reimbursement for "facilities" and global reimbursement for "non-facilities". The annual reimbursement rate for each procedure was averaged across all localities and adjusted for inflation. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of each procedure's reimbursement was determined, and a weighted average of the CAGR for each group of procedures was calculated using each procedure's 2020 Medicare Part B utilization. Reimbursement for laryngology procedure (CPT) codes has declined over the last two decades. In facilities, the weighted average CAGR for office-based procedures was -2.0%, for airway procedures was -2.2%, for voice disorders procedures was -1.4%, and for dysphagia procedures was -1.7%. In non-facilities, the weighted average CAGR for office-based procedures was -0.9%. The procedures in the other procedure groups did not have a corresponding non-facility reimbursement rate. Like other otolaryngology subspecialties, inflation-adjusted reimbursements for common laryngology procedures have decreased substantially over the past two decades. Because of the large number of physician participants and patient enrollees in the Medicare programs, increased awareness and further research into the implications of these trends on patient care is necessary to ensure quality in the delivery of laryngology care. NA Laryngoscope, 134:247-256, 2024.

ChatGPT’s quiz skills in different otolaryngology subspecialties: an analysis of 2576 single-choice and multiple-choice board certification preparation questions

PurposeWith the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in various domains, including healthcare, there is growing acceptance and interest in consulting AI models to provide medical information and advice. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT’s responses to practice quiz questions designed for otolaryngology board certification and decipher potential performance disparities across different otolaryngology subspecialties.MethodsA dataset covering 15 otolaryngology subspecialties was collected from an online learning platform funded by the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, designed for board certification examination preparation. These questions were entered into ChatGPT, with its responses being analyzed for accuracy and variance in performance.ResultsThe dataset included 2576 questions (479 multiple-choice and 2097 single-choice), of which 57% (n = 1475) were answered correctly by ChatGPT. An in-depth analysis of question style revealed that single-choice questions were associated with a significantly higher rate (p < 0.001) of correct responses (n = 1313; 63%) compared to multiple-choice questions (n = 162; 34%). Stratified by question categories, ChatGPT yielded the highest rate of correct responses (n = 151; 72%) in the field of allergology, whereas 7 out of 10 questions (n = 65; 71%) on legal otolaryngology aspects were answered incorrectly.ConclusionThe study reveals ChatGPT’s potential as a supplementary tool for otolaryngology board certification preparation. However, its propensity for errors in certain otolaryngology areas calls for further refinement. Future research should address these limitations to improve ChatGPT’s educational use. An approach, with expert collaboration, is recommended for the reliable and accurate integration of such AI models.

Mounier-Kuhn With Multiple Diverticula

A male in his 60s, nonsmoker, with history of gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia repair, and recurrent bronchitis presented to an otolaryngology subspecialty clinic with 1 month of mild dyspnea. Office bronchoscopy identified a paratracheal diverticulum and abnormal scar tissue in the mainstem bronchi bilaterally. The trachea demonstrated posterior scar bands with intermittent dilations (Figure 1). Computed tomography (CT) imaging revealed a 44×18–mm cystic, extrapulmonary lesion along the right side of the trachea, as well as tracheobronchomegaly (Figure 2).

Developing a Social Media Ontology Across Otolaryngology and its Subspecialties.

To determine how social media is used in the dissemination of new information within otolaryngology, and to emphasize the importance of standardizing Twitter hashtag use. Based on the 2019 SCImago journal rankings, the Twitter posts from the accounts of the top three journals covering each otolaryngology subspecialty were reviewed from August 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021. Twitter posts from the primary otolaryngology-related academic societies were also reviewed during this timeframe. A list of hashtags was generated based on a combination of the most common otolaryngologic procedures and most commonly used hashtags in the social media space. This list was then crowd-sourced with 10 fellowship-trained otolaryngologists for each subspecialty. Hashtag use among key stakeholders in the otolaryngology social media space varies considerably. For instance, #HNSCC, #HeadAndNeckSquamousCellCarcinoma, #HeadAndNeckCancer, #HeadAndNeckCancers, #OropharyngealCancer, #OropharynxCancer, #OralCancer, and #OPSCC were all commonly used hashtags to identify posts discussing oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. #HeadAndNeckCancer and #HNSCC were most popular and used in a total of 85 and 65 tweets, respectively. #HeadAndNeckCancer was found alone in 32 out of 85 tweets (38%), whereas #HNSCC was found alone in 27 out of 65 tweets (42%). A standardized hashtag ontology covering all subspecialties within otolaryngology is proposed herein. Adoption of a standardized social media ontology within otolaryngology will improve information dissemination across all key stakeholders. Laryngoscope, 133:1595-1599, 2023.

Comparison of subspecialty major surgical volume in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of subspecialty major surgical volume in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Otolaryngology Subspecialty Surgical Rescheduling Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ObjectiveIn the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, elective and oncologic surgical cases were cancelled. After adequate safety protocols were established, each subspecialty within otolaryngology faced unique challenges in reengaging patients for surgical scheduling.Study DesignRetrospective review from March to May 2020.SettingSingle academic institution.MethodsPatients whose otolaryngology surgery was cancelled due to COVID-19 hospital precautions were identified. Rescheduling rates were analyzed by subspecialty. Case completion was determined as the percentage of initially cancelled cases that were completed within 6 months of their original planned dates.ResultsOf 833 otolaryngology cases scheduled between March 16 and May 29, 2020, a total of 555 (66.63%) were cancelled due to COVID-19 precautions, and 71.17% were rescheduled within 6 months. Cancellation and rescheduling rates per subspeciality were as follows, respectively: head and neck surgery, 42.79% and 88.76%; sleep surgery, 83.92% and 64.07%; rhinology and skull base, 72.67% and 64.80%; facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 80.00% and 74.17%; otology and neurotology, 71.05% and 66.67%; and laryngology, 68.57% and 79.17%. The case completion rates were as follows: head and neck surgery, 95.2%; laryngology, 85.7%; facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 79.3%; otology and neurotology, 76.3%; rhinology and skull base, 74.4%; and sleep surgery, 69.9%.ConclusionDifferences for surgical rescheduling rates during the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown exist among otolaryngology subspecialties. Our experience suggests that subspecialties that functioned on an elective nature were more likely to face lower rates of case completion.

Operating Room Waste Generated Across Otolaryngology Cases.

Hospital waste adds to the ecological footprint of the healthcare system, whereas inattention to recyclables may increase costs. The primary objective of this study was to assess the amount of recyclable and nonrecyclable intraoperative waste produced across representative otolaryngology surgical procedures. Representative surgical cases across four otolaryngology subspecialties at a tertiary care military medical institution were prospectively identified. Waste was collected, divided, and weighed across two categories: recyclable and nonrecyclable. This study was performed in conjunction with a hospital-approved quality improvement project. The study included 22 otolaryngology surgeries performed across four otolaryngology subspecialties: facial plastics, pediatrics, otology, and head and neck oncology. Overall, 197.4 kg of waste was collected of which 40.2 kg (20%) was recyclable and 157.2 kg (80%) was nonrecyclable. An average of 1.8 kg of recyclable materials and 7.1 kg of nonrecyclable materials were collected per case. This study supports that otolaryngology surgical procedures generate a significant amount of waste, a large component of which is recyclable. It highlights the need for proper disposal of this waste and the implementation of a recycling program at our institution with the potential for both ecologic and economic benefits.

Trends in Academic Achievement Within Otolaryngology: Does Fellowship Training Impact Research Productivity?

Scholarly productivity and research output vary among different subspecialties. The h-index was developed as a more wholesome metric that measures an author's contribution to literature. Through a web-based cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the differences in scholarly impact and influence of both fellowship and nonfellowship-trained academic otolaryngologists in the United States. A secondary objective was to further understand the output among the larger fellowship fields. A cross-sectional analysis was performed for active faculty otolaryngologists. A total of 1704 otolaryngologists were identified as faculty in residency training programs across the United States. Their h-index and publication data were gathered using the Scopus database. The data were obtained in August 2019 and analysis occurred in January 2020. Head and neck surgical faculty (25.5%) had the highest representation with fellowship experience. Among all faculty, there was no statistical difference in the overall average h-index scores when comparing faculty that had fellowship training with those who did not (12.6 and 12.1, respectively, P = .498). Rhinologists had the highest publication output per year at 3.90. Among fellowship-trained faculty, the highest average h-index and total publications were seen in head & neck surgery, while facial plastics had the lowest averages (P < .001). In this study, fellowship-trained faculty had a greater but not significant scholarly impact than nonfellowship faculty. Furthermore, there were significant variations in output among the various subspecialties of otolaryngology. Growing fields, as academic rhinology, are continuing to flourish in robust research productivity and output. This study further demonstrates the potential, growing influence of fellowship training on research involvement and academic advancement within the otolaryngology subspecialties.

Diversity in Academic Laryngology: An Evaluation of Academic Advancement and Research Productivity.

Diversity within the medical profession with respect to sex and racial minorities has been shown to have a positive effect on health and healthcare. Characterization of a field is key to evaluating trends and the advancement of diversity in an otolaryngology subspecialty. Observational study. A comprehensive list of all the academic laryngologists was compiled from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited otolaryngology residency programs in 2020. The last 20 past presidents of the American Laryngological Association (ALA) and American Broncho-Esophogological Association (ABEA) were analyzed. Academic rank and years in practice were determined from departmental websites, with online search tools used as secondary resources. The h-index was utilized as a measure of research productivity. Regression analysis was performed to analyze these variables. There are 184 academic laryngologists in the 124 programs. The majority of the population is Caucasian 76.6% (141/184), followed by Asian 16.3% (30/184), African American 4.34% (8/184), and then Hispanic 1% (2/184). There are 47 full professors with 83% Caucasian, 14.1% Asian, and 2.1% African American and 91.5% male and only 8.5% female. Past ALA presidents were 90% male and for the ABEA 75% male. H-index revealed a statistically significant difference between Caucasian and African American colleagues [P value (<.0005)]. Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in laryngology. Women are less likely to be in leadership roles in laryngology and become full professors. Laryngology lags behind other surgical specialties in the representation of minorities and women. Continued efforts should be made to increase diversity in the field of laryngology, especially in regard to underrepresented minorities. NA Laryngoscope, 132:1245-1250, 2022.

Factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist's scholarly impact.

ObjectivesDescribe the h index as a bibliometric that can be utilized to objectively evaluate scholarly impact. Identify which otolaryngology subspecialties are the most scholarly. Describe if NIH funding to one’s choice of medical school, residency, or fellowship has any impact on one’s scholarly output. Determine other factors predictive of an academic otolaryngologist’s productivity.Study designAnalysis of bibliometric data of academic otolaryngologists.MethodsActive grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to otolaryngology departments were ascertained via the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports database. Faculty listings from these departments were gleaned from departmental websites. H index was calculated using the Scopus database.ResultsForty-seven otolaryngology programs were actively receiving NIH funding. There were 838 faculty members from those departments who had a mean h index of 9.61. Otology (h index 12.50) and head and neck (h index 11.96) were significantly (P < 0.0001) more scholarly than the rest of subspecialists. H index was significantly correlative (P < 0.0001) with degree of NIH funding at a given institution. H index was not significantly higher for those that attended medical school (P < 0.18), residency (P < 0.16), and fellowship (P < 0.16) at institutions with NIH funding to otolaryngology departments.ConclusionsH index is a bibliometric that can be used to assess scholarly impact. Otology and head and neck are the most scholarly subspecialists within otolaryngology. NIH funding to an individual’s medical school, residency, or fellowship of origin is not correlative with one’s scholarly impact, but current institutional affiliation and choice of subspecialty are.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery: A State of the Art Review

ObjectiveTo offer practical, evidence‐informed knowledge on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and their utility in improving care and reducing costs in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. This primer on CDSSs introduces clinicians to both the capabilities and the limitations of this technology, reviews the literature on current state, and seeks to spur further progress in this area.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science.Review MethodsScoping review of CDSS literature applicable to otolaryngology clinical practice. Investigators identified articles that incorporated knowledge‐based computerized CDSSs to aid clinicians in decision making and workflow. Data extraction included level of evidence, Osheroff classification of CDSS intervention type, otolaryngology subspecialty or domain, and impact on provider performance or patient outcomes.ConclusionsOf 3191 studies retrieved, 11 articles met formal inclusion criteria. CDSS interventions included guideline or protocols support (n = 8), forms and templates (n = 5), data presentation aids (n = 2), and reactive alerts, reference information, or order sets (all n = 1); 4 studies had multiple interventions. CDSS studies demonstrated effectiveness across diverse domains, including antibiotic stewardship, cancer survivorship, guideline adherence, data capture, cost reduction, and workflow. Implementing CDSSs often involved collaboration with health information technologists.Implications for PracticeWhile the published literature on CDSSs in otolaryngology is finite, CDSS interventions are proliferating in clinical practice, with roles in preventing medical errors, streamlining workflows, and improving adherence to best practices for head and neck disorders. Clinicians may collaborate with information technologists and health systems scientists to develop, implement, and investigate the impact of CDSSs in otolaryngology.

Impact of subspecialty training on management of laryngopharyngeal reflux: results of a worldwide survey.

To study the management of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) among the subspecialties of practicing otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons and their trainees. A survey was sent to over 8000 otolaryngologists (OTOHNS) over 65 countries, utilizing membership lists of participating otolaryngological societies. The outcomes were answers to questions regarding LPR knowledge and practice patterns, and included queries about its definition, prevalence, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Of the 824 respondents, 658 practiced in one specific otolaryngologic subspecialty. The symptoms and findings thought to be the most related to LPR varied significantly between subspecialists. Extra-laryngeal findings were considered less by laryngologists while more experienced OTOHNS did not often consider digestive complaints. Compared with colleagues, otologists, rhinologists and laryngologists were less aware of the involvement of LPR in otological, rhinological and laryngological disorders, respectively. Irrespective of subspecialty, OTOHNS consider symptoms and signs and a positive response to empirical therapeutic trial to establish a LPR diagnosis. Awareness regarding the usefulness of impedance pH-studies is low in all groups. The therapeutic approach significantly varies between groups, although all were in agreement for the treatment duration. The management of non-responder patients demonstrated significant differences among laryngologists who performed additional examinations. The majority of participants (37.1%) admitted to being less than knowledgeable about LPR management. LPR knowledge and management vary significantly across otolaryngology subspecialties. International guidelines on LPR management appear necessary to improve knowledge and management of LPR across all subspecialties of otolaryngology.

Systematic Review of Telehealth Cost Minimization for Patients and Health Systems in Otolaryngology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in telehealth becoming commonplace in many health care fields. Telehealth benefits include improving access, decreasing costs, and elevating patient's experience. A review of cost minimization (CM) analyses was performed in order to explore scientific studies associated with integrating tele-otolaryngology in clinical practice. Our primary objective was to evaluate published literature for cost related to the implementation of telemedicine across otolaryngology, and to determine CM when compared to in-person visits. Systematic Literature Review. We performed a systematic review using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane in May 2020, to identify studies with a cost analysis of tele-otolaryngology care. Inclusion criteria focused on articles citing CM data from telehealth services. Literature quality was assessed using the MINORS scoring system. From 380 original articles screened only nine evaluated cost in otolaryngology. CM in the US ranged from $68 to $900 per visit. Cost was evaluated in general otolaryngology, sleep medicine, otology, and head and neck cancer surgery, the latter had the most benefit. The most common types of telehealth visits were routine follow-up and screening. Data were insufficient for meta-analysis. Telemedicine has been trialed across various otolaryngology subspecialties; its incorporation is projected to have a meaningful impact on access to specialty care. This research suggests that the delivery of virtual care reduces cost with the potential of increasing net revenue across multiple otolaryngology subspecialties. Further studies are needed to better discern the entirety of cost savings and the best settings for integration. 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1741-1748, 2021.

A Review of Otolaryngology Malpractice Cases with Associated Court Proceedings from 2010 to 2019

To report key characteristics of the landscape of malpractice litigation with associated court proceedings in otolaryngology over the previous decade. Retrospective database review. The LexisNexis database was queried to identify otolaryngology-related malpractices cases that yielded court opinions, jury verdicts, and settlements from federal and state courts across the United States from 2010 to 2019. Cases settled outside of court were not identifiable. Provider subspecialty, procedures, error type, legal allegations, and case outcomes were recorded. Frequency of error type was compared between otolaryngology subspecialties using Fisher exact tests. Ninety-four medical malpractice cases related to otolaryngology with evidence of court proceedings were identified for the period between 2010 and 2019. An otolaryngologist was named as the sole defendant in 39 cases (41%). Rhinology was the most frequently implicated subspecialty (28% of all cases), followed by head and neck surgery (17%) and facial plastics (7%). Improper surgical performance was cited in nearly half of the identified cases (49%), followed by failure to diagnose/refer/treat (32%). Outcome and liability data were available for 56 cases (60%). Of these 56 cases, 50 (89%) were ruled in favor of the defendant otolaryngologist. Of the cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the average indemnity was $4.24 M (range, $150,000 M-$10.25 M). Fisher exact tests demonstrated statistically significant differences in consent issues (P = .040), failure to diagnose/refer/treat (P = .024), and improper surgical performance (P = .026) between subspecialties. In a limited, database-derived sample of medical malpractice cases involving otolaryngologists, trends in error type by subspecialty may warrant further investigation to identify specialty-wide and subspecialty-specific areas of practice improvement and education. N/A Laryngoscope, 131:E1081-E1085, 2021.