Quality of Life Benefit after Endoscopic Frontal Sinus Surgery

ElBadawey,; Alwaa, A; El-Taher, Mostafa; Carrie, Sean

doi:10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4063

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 31 studies were considered to be duplicates from the same cohort, and an additional 53 failed to meet inclusion/exclusion criteria. The final study list included 40 unique patient cohorts published from 2008 to 2016 and representing institutions from North America (n = 14), Europe (n = 12), Middle East (n = 6), Australia (n = 3), Asia (n = 3), and South America (n = 2) . The majority of studies were prospective observational cohorts (n =2 3), with the remainder being surgical arms from randomized clinical trials (n = 7), retrospective cohorts (n = 7), or case‐control studies (n = 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sino‐Nasal outcome test‐22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sino‐Nasal outcome test‐22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, while the panel members met consensus on the short-term effectiveness of SOD in the management of chronic sinusitis, it became difficult to ascribe this effect to individual sinuses. Randomized trials 12,14 and observational studies 15,31,50,51 and expert opinion 52,53 suggest a benefit in certain circumstances from SOD of the frontal sinus when applied as either a stand-alone or hybrid procedure. The combination of the literature and the experience of some panel members were cited by the group as explanation for reaching consensus on the possible (''can be'' vs ''is'') use of SOD in the management of frontal sinusitis (Statement 42a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Consensus Statement: Balloon Dilation of the Sinuses

Piccirillo

Payne

Rosenfeld

et al. 2018

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of sinus ostial dilation (SOD) of the paranasal sinuses. Methods An expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled to represent general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population is adults 18 years or older with chronic or recurrent rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps, with or without prior sinus surgery) for whom SOD is being recommended, defined as endoscopic use of a balloon device to enlarge or open the outflow tracts of the maxillary, frontal, or sphenoid sinuses, as a standalone procedure or with endoscopic surgery. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus. Results After 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 13 statements met the standardized definition of consensus while 45 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes. Strong consensus was obtained for not performing SOD in patients without sinonasal symptoms or positive findings on computed tomography (CT) in patients with symptoms only of headache or sleep apnea without criteria for sinusitis. In addition, strong consensus was met that CT scan of the sinuses was necessary before performing SOD and that surgeons need to understand and abide by regulations set forth by the US Food and Drug Administration if they choose to reuse/reprocess devices. Conclusion Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of SOD for the management of patients with a diagnosis of rhinosinusitis. This panel reached consensus on a number of statements that defined the use of SOD as inappropriate in the management of a variety of symptoms or diseases in the absence of underlying sinusitis. When patients meet the definition of chronic sinusitis as confirmed by CT scan, SOD of the sinuses can be indicated and/or effective in certain scenarios. Additional consensus statements regarding proper setting and safeguards for performing the procedure are described.

show abstract

“…Although many studies have been published on the Draf 3 technique, the majority of these studies are case‐series. The body of literature for the Draf 2B is still emerging with only a few case‐series published to date . Studies that include multiple frontal surgical techniques (Draf 2A, Draf 2B, and Draf 3) poorly delineate the outcomes of each separate technique .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equivalence in outcomes between Draf 2B vs Draf 3 frontal sinusotomy for refractory chronic frontal rhinosinusitis

Patel

Choby

Shih

et al. 2017

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Endoscopic Draf 2B and Draf 3 frontal sinusotomies are frequently performed for chronic refractory frontal rhinosinusitis. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between Draf 2B and Draf 3 procedures. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing patients undergoing bilateral Draf 2B vs Draf 3 procedures from 2000 to 2016. Patients with neoplasia, dysplasia, mucocele, cystic fibrosis, or ciliary dyskinesia were excluded. Preoperative disease parameters included number of prior surgeries, presence of polyps, preoperative 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) score, frontal Lund‐Mackay score, anterior‐posterior diameter of the frontal ostium, and Global Osteitis Scoring Scale (GOSS). Postoperative outcomes included SNOT‐22 score, neo‐ostium patency, surgical revision rates, and complications. Results A total of 21 patients with bilateral Draf 2B and 17 patients with Draf 3 surgeries were compared. Mean follow‐up time was 15.6 months. No significant differences were seen between groups for any preoperative disease parameter. Both cohorts showed statistically significant (p = 0.0001 [Draf 2B]; p = 0.0001 [Draf 3]) and clinically meaningful (Δ = 24.1; Δ = 24.9) improvements in SNOT‐22 at last follow‐up vs preoperatively. The Draf 2B group had greater improvement in SNOT‐22 score than the Draf 3 group at 1 to 3 months (p = 0.003), but the magnitude of improvement equalized at 5 to 9 months (p = 0.66) and last follow‐up (p = 0.90). No significant differences were noted between groups regarding patency, revision rates, or complications. Conclusion Both Draf 2B and Draf 3 procedures offer durable symptomatic improvement for patients with refractory frontal CRS. The Draf 2B is associated with earlier postoperative symptom improvement and overall shows comparable long‐term outcomes to the Draf 3 sinusotomy.

show abstract

Quality of Life Benefit after Endoscopic Frontal Sinus Surgery

Abstract: Our study is the first report of QOL benefit after all three frontal sinus procedures using the validated GBI, showing benefit in all aspects of health domains. The physical symptoms and QOL assessed by SNOT-22 significantly improved after all three procedures.

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Sino‐Nasal outcome test‐22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Sino‐Nasal outcome test‐22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical Consensus Statement: Balloon Dilation of the Sinuses

Equivalence in outcomes between Draf 2B vs Draf 3 frontal sinusotomy for refractory chronic frontal rhinosinusitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About