Does turbinate reduction combined with septoplasty have better outcomes than septoplasty alone? A randomised, controlled study

Abstract

Objective This study investigated whether inferior turbinate reduction combined with septoplasty improves patients’ outcomes, as assessed by objective and subjective methods. Methods A single-centre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital ENT clinic. Patients who underwent septoplasty were divided into two groups: group A underwent septoplasty with radiofrequency ablation; group B underwent only septoplasty. All patients were assessed before and three months after surgery using acoustic rhinometry and peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements, as well as Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 scores. Results Seventy-four patients completed the study (36 in group A and 38 in group B). The patients in both groups showed significant improvements in acoustic rhinometry and peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements and in Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 scores after the surgery (p < 0.05). However, the differences between the groups were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion Inferior turbinate ablation combined with septoplasty does not provide any more benefit to the objective and subjective outcomes of patients than septoplasty alone.

Otitis externa management, septal surgery outcomes, laryngeal dysplasia and paediatric sleep-disordered breathing

“…One interesting finding was that the change in outcomes over time was not significantly affected by whether or not turbinate surgery was included with septoplasty. 7 The conclusion that outcomes are better in patients whose noses are more blocked before surgery chimes with previous studies.…”

Septoplasty versus septoplasty with turbinate reduction for nasal obstruction due to deviated nasal septum: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In addition, these six studies measured subjective nasal obstruction with both unspecified and specified tools. Subjective results corresponded with objective results in all trials that used a specified tool to measure nasal obstruction (i.e., NOSE, VAS, SNOT) (10,22,28) .…”

“…Since van Egmond et al discussed the value of ITR, numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. Some RCTs showed better outcomes towards ITR, whereas others showed no discernable difference (9,10) . This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of septoplasty alone compared with septoplasty and contralateral ITR in adults with nasal obstruction due to DNS.…”

“…After removing duplicates, 793 records were screened by titles and abstracts, resulting in 20 studies eligible for full-text evaluation. Overall, twelve RCTs fulfilled our criteria and were included in the current review (9,10,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) . Five studies were excluded from the meta-analysis because of insufficient information provided (20,21,24,27,28) .…”

“…Six trials reported adverse events (n=446) (9,10,19,22,26) . The pooled effect estimate showed a more than twofold higher risk of complications associated with concurrent ITR surgery (OR=2.90, 95% CI 1.11 to 7.54, p = 0.03, I 2 = 0%, Figure 7, low-certainty evidence).…”