K Parthasarathi1, J M Christensen2, R Alvarado2, H P Barham3, R Sacks4, R J Harvey5. 1. 1. Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, St Vincents Centre for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 2. St Vincents Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 2. Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, St Vincents Centre for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. 1. Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, St Vincents Centre for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 3. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana, Unite. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 5. 1. Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, St Vincents Centre for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 2. St Vincents Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 4. Facult.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inferior turbinate procedures are applied to relieve medically refractory nasal obstruction. However, the nature of congestion differs between allergic(AR) and non-allergic rhinitis(NAR). This study compares surgical outcomes between AR and NAR patients. METHODOLOGY: A case-control study of patients undergoing turbinate with or without septoplasty surgery for nasal obstruction was performed. Patient reported outcomes were: nasal obstruction, global nasal function(GNF), and sino-nasal outcome test(SNOT-22) with rhinitis, facial symptom, sleep and psychological sub-scores. Nasal peak inspiratory flow(NPIF) assessed nasal airflow. Measurements were obtained preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: 190 patients were assessed. AR had worse obstruction and worse GNF. All outcomes improved post-surgery; nasal obstruction, GNF, SNOT-22, rhinitis-symptoms, facial-symptoms, sleep-function, psychological-function and NPIF. GNF improvement was greater in AR. NPIF improvement was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both AR and NAR patients gained benefit from surgery to relieve nasal obstruction. AR patients demonstrate greater improvement in GNF score but allergy management may contribute to this.
BACKGROUND: Inferior turbinate procedures are applied to relieve medically refractory nasal obstruction. However, the nature of congestion differs between allergic(AR) and non-allergic rhinitis(NAR). This study compares surgical outcomes between AR and NAR patients. METHODOLOGY: A case-control study of patients undergoing turbinate with or without septoplasty surgery for nasal obstruction was performed. Patient reported outcomes were: nasal obstruction, global nasal function(GNF), and sino-nasal outcome test(SNOT-22) with rhinitis, facial symptom, sleep and psychological sub-scores. Nasal peak inspiratory flow(NPIF) assessed nasal airflow. Measurements were obtained preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: 190 patients were assessed. AR had worse obstruction and worse GNF. All outcomes improved post-surgery; nasal obstruction, GNF, SNOT-22, rhinitis-symptoms, facial-symptoms, sleep-function, psychological-function and NPIF. GNF improvement was greater in AR. NPIF improvement was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both AR and NAR patients gained benefit from surgery to relieve nasal obstruction. AR patients demonstrate greater improvement in GNF score but allergy management may contribute to this.