Nasal obstruction (NO) is defined as the subjective perception of discomfort or difficulty in the passage of air through the nostrils. It is a common reason for consultation in primary and specialized care and may affect up to 30%-40% of the population. It affects quality of life (especially sleep) and lowers work efficiency. The aim of this document is to agree on how to treat NO, establish a methodology for evaluating and diagnosing it, and define an individualized approach to its treatment. NO can be unilateral or bilateral, intermittent or persistent and may be caused by local or systemic factors, which may be anatomical, inflammatory, neurological, hormonal, functional, environmental, or pharmacological in origin. Directed study of the medical history and physical examination are key for diagnosing the specific cause. NO may be evaluated using subjective assessment tools (visual analog scale, symptom score, standardized questionnaires) or by objective estimation (active anterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, peak nasal inspiratory flow). Although there is little correlation between the results, they may be considered complementary and not exclusive. Assessing the impact on quality of life through questionnaires standardized according to the underlying disease is also advisable. NO is treated according to its cause. Treatment is fundamentally pharmacological (topical and/or systemic) when the etiology is inflammatory or functional. Surgery may be necessary when medical treatment fails to complement or improve medical treatment or when other therapeutic approaches are not possible. Combinations of surgical techniques and medical treatment may be necessary.

Endoscopic techniques are currently the approach of choice for the treatment of such tumours of the sinonasal cavity and pterygomaxillary and infratemporal regions. The size of the lesion did not contraindicate endoscopic sinonasal surgery as a curative treatment.

Overall, statistically significant differences were observed relating to measurements (p < 0.01) and surgical techniques (p < 0.05) analyzed. In particular, these differences were located in pairs pre-surgery - 6 months post-surgery and pre-surgery - post 24 months, in the four variables, and between the two techniques used in jitter (p = 0.008), HNR (p = 0.045) and VHI (p = 0.035).

Recurrence occurred in 4 of the 34 patients who underwent EMM (11.8%; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 39 at 26%) and in 8 of the 18 patients treated using non-endoscopic techniques (44.4%; 95% CI = 23.2 at 67.3%). There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between treatments, assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank testing. Of the 12 patients who suffered a recurrence, 6 (50%) were treated with endoscopic surgery, 4 (33%) with mediofacial degloving and 2 (17%) were merely followed up; no malignant degeneration occurred.