Office routine, despite variations, is usually pretty common in most of our clinical settings, be it in the diversity of affections, or the problems and difficulties we face to be successful in our practice. Apart from the uncertainty and pressure placed by the need for correct diagnosis, we also face today the economic context, especially the managed care and other health care systems. Sometimes, the logic dictated by medical activity is different from that of health care systems. Some days ago, I had a very significant experience: the patient suffered a nasal trauma, was entitled to first rank emergency care and the diagnosis of nasal fracture was made; the clinician opted for conservative management and referral to a specialist. Twenty days later, the patient came to my office. Diagnosis of nasal fracture with pyramid compromise, twisted nose and septal deviation causing nasal obstruction. Suggested management: rhinoseptoplasty. Once the patient applied for hospitalization, the answer came: "Where is the nasofibroscopy?" It made me wonder whether it is mandatory to perform a nasofibroscopy to assess the nose. Is a medical auditing organization entitled to question the indication of a specialist with a test result in hand?

This case shows us how much we need grounded theoretical references. Where does it say what the minimum procedures to diagnose and define treatment are? Obviously, guidelines developed by the different specialty societies can be used as ground rules to manage some affections, but they are still far too general. What about specific cases? How can we decide? Shall we leave to the auditors to make decisions? There are different ways to make us have confidence on our actions. There are peer opinion, well-structured scientific studies, the consensus of the specialties, and textbooks. The Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology is proud to say that we are a guide for most personal decisions and legal disputes in Otorhinolaryngology and it is undoubtedly one of the key factors among the ones listed as reference by medical professionals. Nevertheless, the Brazilian Society has continuously struggled for developing permanent scientific and intellectual references for Brazilian Otorhinolaryngologists and it has prepared consensus and guidelines in different topics, such as tonsillitis, apnea, otitis, etc. The work is dynamic and permanent. However, we still lacked a textbook. A book in which the authors were guided by colleagues with experience and knowledge on the specific difficulties of our professional activity and whose motto was comprehensiveness and deepness. Eventually, after many hours of organizers' work and meetings with medical university faculty for the definition of topics and the ideal authors, we have come up with the book. After about 2 years of work, the final product is a 5,500 page treatise, fully illustrated with 1,500 photos and 2,000 drawings, all of them redesigned to provide uniformity of presentation and color in most of them. The book has about 580 contributing authors, representing a very broad spectrum of Brazilian players in the area. Owing to its magnitude, we decided to divide it into 5 sequential volumes. The first volume is dedicated to foundations and comprehend general basic topics and each sub-specialty - Otology, Rhinology, Facial esthetical and reconstructive surgery, Pharyngostomatology, Laryngology, Head and neck, Skull base surgery and Pediatric ENT. The second, third and fourth volumes encompass the diseases of each area, to wit - Otology and Skull Base (II), Rhinology, Pharyngostomatology, Facial esthetical and reconstructive surgery (III), Laryngology and Head and neck (IV). And finally, the fifth volume, addressing surgical techniques and special therapies.

This is the new production of SBORL. This is what can be called reference! The book release has been scheduled for August and September 2002.

Dear colleagues, you simply can't miss it!

Best regards