Nathan R Stein1, Aria Jafari1, Adam S DeConde1. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is performed for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) that have failed maximal medical therapy. This study seeks to determine the prevalence of revision surgery and factors predicting the need for revision after ESS using a large statewide surgery database. STUDY DESIGN: Large retrospective cohort study using the State Ambulatory Surgery Database for the state of California between 2005 and 2011. METHODS: We identified over 61,000 patients with CRS who underwent ESS, determined by Current Procedural Terminology code. We identified which patients underwent a repeat surgery, and performed multivariable modeling to determine which factors (nasal polyps, age, gender, insurance, hospital setting, ethnicity) predicted the need for revision. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals are presented. RESULTS: Of 61,339 patients who underwent ESS, 4,078 (6.65%) returned for revision ESS during the time period investigated. In a multivariable logistic regression model, positive predictors of revision were a diagnosis of nasal polyps (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29, P < .001) and female gender (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29, P < .001); public insurance was marginally predictive of increased reoperation (AOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.21, P = .048). Patients of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to have revision surgery (AOR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97, P = .011). Age, income, and hospital setting were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients with CRS who undergo ESS will have a revision surgery. This likelihood is increased in female patients and those with nasal polyps, and decreased in patients of Hispanic ethnicity, even when controlling for income, insurance, and hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:31-36, 2018.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is performed for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) that have failed maximal medical therapy. This study seeks to determine the prevalence of revision surgery and factors predicting the need for revision after ESS using a large statewide surgery database. STUDY DESIGN: Large retrospective cohort study using the State Ambulatory Surgery Database for the state of California between 2005 and 2011. METHODS: We identified over 61,000 patients with CRS who underwent ESS, determined by Current Procedural Terminology code. We identified which patients underwent a repeat surgery, and performed multivariable modeling to determine which factors (nasal polyps, age, gender, insurance, hospital setting, ethnicity) predicted the need for revision. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals are presented. RESULTS: Of 61,339 patients who underwent ESS, 4,078 (6.65%) returned for revision ESS during the time period investigated. In a multivariable logistic regression model, positive predictors of revision were a diagnosis of nasal polyps (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29, P < .001) and female gender (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29, P < .001); public insurance was marginally predictive of increased reoperation (AOR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.21, P = .048). Patients of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to have revision surgery (AOR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97, P = .011). Age, income, and hospital setting were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients with CRS who undergo ESS will have a revision surgery. This likelihood is increased in female patients and those with nasal polyps, and decreased in patients of Hispanic ethnicity, even when controlling for income, insurance, and hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:31-36, 2018.
Authors: C Hopkins; J P Browne; R Slack; V Lund; J Topham; B Reeves; L Copley; P Brown; J van der Meulen Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Kristine A Smith; Richard R Orlandi; Gretchen Oakley; Huong Meeks; Karen Curtin; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: P Virkkula; E Penttilä; S I Vento; J Myller; A Koskinen; S Hammarén-Malmi; A Laulajainen-Hongisto; M Hytönen; M Lilja; J Numminen; S Sillanpää; J Sahlman; S Toppila-Salmi Journal: Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Date: 2020-10-19
Authors: Robert Naclerio; Fuad Baroody; Claus Bachert; Benjamin Bleier; Larry Borish; Erica Brittain; Geoffrey Chupp; Anat Fisher; Wytske Fokkens; Philippe Gevaert; David Kennedy; Jean Kim; Tanya M Laidlaw; Jake J Lee; Jay F Piccirillo; Jayant M Pinto; Lauren T Roland; Robert P Schleimer; Rodney J Schlosser; Julie M Schwaninger; Timothy L Smith; Bruce K Tan; Ming Tan; Elina Toskala; Sally Wenzel; Alkis Togias Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Amarbir S Gill; Kristine A Smith; Huong Meeks; Gretchen M Oakley; Karen Curtin; Laurie LeClair; Heather Howe; Richard R Orlandi; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 5.426
Authors: Dong Kyu Kim; Seong Il Kang; Il Gyu Kong; Young Hoon Cho; Seul Ki Song; Se Jin Hyun; Sung Dong Cho; Sang Yoon Han; Seong Ho Cho; Dae Woo Kim Journal: Allergy Asthma Immunol Res Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 5.764