Literature DB >> 30895435

Endoscopic versus conventional septoplasty: objective/subjective data on 276 patients.

Massimiliano Garzaro1, Valeria Dell'Era2, Giuseppe Riva3, Luca Raimondo4, Giancarlo Pecorari5, Paolo Aluffi Valletti1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Endoscopic approach represents a valid alternative to conventional septoplasty. The aim of this study is to analyze the objective and subjective data on 276 patients, who underwent traditional (147) or endoscopic (129) septoplasty.
METHODS: This is a prospective observational study on 276 consecutive patients affected by deviated nasal septum (DNS), who underwent isolated septoplasty between 2011 and 2018. 147 of them were treated using an "open" approach, while 129 were treated with an endoscopic approach. The two groups were compared 3 months after surgery: the objective results (complications such as bleeding, hematoma, pain, synechiae, septal tears and incomplete correction), objective (rhinomanometric data) and subjective measurements (NOSE questionnaires).
RESULTS: Both techniques are effective in decreasing nasal obstruction and discharge. Complications such as pain, synechiae, early postoperative bleeding, septal tears and incomplete correction are less frequent in the endoscopic group (p < 0.05). The rhinomanometric analysis reveal improvement in both groups without statistical differences. Subjective questionnaires show a good symptoms relief with an improved quality of life in all 276 patients without statistical difference between the two gropus.
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are effective in reducing nasal obstruction and related symptoms with fewer overall complications in the endoscopic approach. The endoscope provides improved field of view, less mucosal damages and a more anatomic dissection. Finally, such approach can be a valuable teaching tool for assistants, residents and students.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparison; Endoscopic septoplasty; Endoscopic septoplasty outcomes; Septal deviation; Traditional septoplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30895435     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05393-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  20 in total

1.  Endoscopic septoplasty: Tips and pearls.

Authors:  Y Pons; C Champagne; L Genestier; S Ballivet de Régloix
Journal:  Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.080

2.  Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty.

Authors:  S P Gulati; Raman Wadhera; Neetika Ahuja; Ajay Garg; Anju Ghai
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2009-03-31

3.  A comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty.

Authors:  D C Sathyaki; Chary Geetha; G B Munishwara; M Mohan; K Manjuanth
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-11-24

Review 4.  The use of objective measures in selecting patients for septal surgery.

Authors:  Mats Holmstrom
Journal:  Rhinology       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.681

5.  Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Josée Paradis; Brian W Rotenberg
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-02

6.  Comparative evaluation of conventional versus endoscopic septoplasty for limited septal deviation and spur.

Authors:  R Bothra; N N Mathur
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 1.469

7.  The development of the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index.

Authors:  M S Benninger; B A Senior
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-11

8.  Comparative study of endoscopic aided septoplasty and traditional septoplasty in posterior nasal septal deviations.

Authors:  M Gupta; G Motwani
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-10

9.  Endoscopic septoplasty.

Authors:  Nishi Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-07

10.  Endoscopic septoplasty: revisitation of the technique, indications, and outcomes.

Authors:  Brian J Chung; Pete S Batra; Martin J Citardi; Donald C Lanza
Journal:  Am J Rhinol       Date:  2007 May-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.