Kristine A Smith1,2, Richard R Orlandi2, Gretchen Oakley2, Huong Meeks3,4, Karen Curtin3,4, Jeremiah A Alt2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Pedigree and Population Resource, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reported revision rates for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) vary significantly. Several investigations examining revision rates for ESS have been limited by duration of follow-up, academic centers, or small surgeon cohorts. The objective of this study was to define the long-term revision rates for ESS and to determine those unique patient factors that increase the risk of revision ESS. METHODS: The Utah Population Database was queried for Current Procedural Terminology codes for ESS from 1996 to 2016. Patient demographics and comorbid diagnoses were collected. Revision rates and risk factors for surgery were determined by Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: A total of 29,934 patients were identified, with a mean length of follow-up of 9.7 years. The long-term revision rate was found to be 15.9%. The mean time between surgeries decreased with higher number of revision surgeries. The time between the first and second surgery was 4.39 years and the time between the fourth and fifth surgery decreased to 2.18 years. Female gender, older age at first surgery, nasal polyps, comorbid asthma, allergy, and a family history of CRS all increased the risk of requiring revision surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The long-term revision rate for ESS exceeds 15% and the time between revision surgeries decreased with each additional surgery being performed. Unique patient factors increased the risk of requiring revision ESS. Understanding patients' risk for revision surgery may help physicians select and counsel patients with CRS undergoing ESS.
BACKGROUND: Reported revision rates for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) vary significantly. Several investigations examining revision rates for ESS have been limited by duration of follow-up, academic centers, or small surgeon cohorts. The objective of this study was to define the long-term revision rates for ESS and to determine those unique patient factors that increase the risk of revision ESS. METHODS: The Utah Population Database was queried for Current Procedural Terminology codes for ESS from 1996 to 2016. Patient demographics and comorbid diagnoses were collected. Revision rates and risk factors for surgery were determined by Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: A total of 29,934 patients were identified, with a mean length of follow-up of 9.7 years. The long-term revision rate was found to be 15.9%. The mean time between surgeries decreased with higher number of revision surgeries. The time between the first and second surgery was 4.39 years and the time between the fourth and fifth surgery decreased to 2.18 years. Female gender, older age at first surgery, nasal polyps, comorbid asthma, allergy, and a family history of CRS all increased the risk of requiring revision surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The long-term revision rate for ESS exceeds 15% and the time between revision surgeries decreased with each additional surgery being performed. Unique patient factors increased the risk of requiring revision ESS. Understanding patients' risk for revision surgery may help physicians select and counsel patients with CRS undergoing ESS.
Authors: Gretchen M Oakley; Karen Curtin; Quinn Orb; Carole Schaefer; Richard R Orlandi; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Carl Philpott; Claire Hopkins; Sally Erskine; Nirmal Kumar; Alasdair Robertson; Amir Farboud; Shahzada Ahmed; Shahram Anari; Russell Cathcart; Hisham Khalil; Paul Jervis; Sean Carrie; Naveed Kara; Peter Prinsley; Robert Almeyda; Nicolas Mansell; Sankalp Sunkaraneni; Mahmoud Salam; Jaydip Ray; Jaan Panesaar; Jonathan Hobson; Allan Clark; Steve Morris Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Timothy L Smith; Rodney J Schlosser; Jess C Mace; Jeremiah A Alt; Daniel M Beswick; Adam S DeConde; Kara Y Detwiller; Jose L Mattos; Zachary M Soler Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Karina Bayer; Selmir Hamidovic; Faris F Brkic; Gerold Besser; Christian A Mueller; David T Liu Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Atsushi Kato; Anju T Peters; Whitney W Stevens; Robert P Schleimer; Bruce K Tan; Robert C Kern Journal: Allergy Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 14.710
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