Two different therapies for the middle turbinate during endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis
- PDF / 952,437 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 177 Views
RHINOLOGY
Two different therapies for the middle turbinate during endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis Meichan Zhu1 · Yongyi Yan1 · Huicheng Gong1 · Yunwen Wu1 · Guojie Tan1 Received: 17 May 2020 / Accepted: 30 June 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Background The population of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has greatly increased. When medical treatment fails, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is considered. In the present study, the value of two different therapies for the middle turbinate to optimize surgical outcomes was observed. Our objective was to determine a better management approach for the middle turbinate to effectively preserve the middle turbinate mucosa and function and avoid complications following ESS, such as nasal adhesions on the operative side. Methods Thirty patients [group A; treated prior to 2015 (primary surgery)] undergoing resection of the middle turbinate bone during complete ESS for CRS and 30 patients [group B; treated after 2015 (later surgery)] undergoing middle turbinate preservation and multiapproach therapy during complete ESS for CRS were observed. Nasal cavities were compared using perioperative sinus endoscopy (POSE) and Lund–Kennedy (LKES) scores preoperatively and at 15 days, 2 months and 1 year after ESS. Results Preoperatively, the POSE (8.83 ± 3.81 vs 9.15 ± 3.85, p = 0.45, for groups A and B, respectively) and LKES (4.23 ± 0.74 vs 4.13 ± 0.70, p = 0.34) scores were similar between groups. In group A, anterior adhesions were reported on six sides of the middle turbinate, severe adhesions were observed on two sides, mild adhesions were observed on one side, and adhesions occurred on two sides during follow-up. After retreatment, adhesions were still observed on two sides at 1 year. In group B, only mild anterior adhesions were observed on two sides. There was no difference between group A and group B at 15 days, and the POSE (4.31 ± 1.19 vs 4.07 ± 1.42, p = 0.11, for groups A and B, respectively) and LKES (3.35 ± 0.82 vs 3.33 ± 0.90, p = 0.91) scores were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in LKES (0.22 ± 0.49 vs 0.10 ± 0.35, p = 0.15) scores at 1 year between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the nasal cavities between group A and group B at 2 months and 1 year, where group B showed a better endoscopic appearance than group A at 2 months and 1 year (with POSE scores of 3.48 ± 0.83 vs 2.43 ± 1.38 (p = 0.00) and LKES scores of 1.35 ± 0.86 vs 1.15 ± 0.90 (p = 0.02) at 2 months for groups A and B, respectively, and POSE scores of 1.00 ± 0.96 vs 0.62 ± 0.87 (p = 0.001) at 1 year for groups A and B, respectively). Conclusions Our results show that middle turbinate preservation and combined therapy was a better ESS method for CRS. Multiapproach middle conchoplasty, which is predominately a submucoperiosteal surgery, can preserve more of the mucosa and functions of the middle turbinate. Unlike the single-approach middle conchoplasty described in previous research,
Data Loading...
