4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Does bilateral inferior turbinate reduction affect long-term quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages 601-606

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22300

Keywords

chronic rhinosinusitis; endoscopic sinus surgery; patient-reported outcome measure; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of bilateral inferior turbinate reduction (BITR) on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods This was a prospective cohort study. Patients with CRS, who were recruited from 10 different otolaryngologic practices between 2011 and 2014, completed the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), Chronic Sinusitis Survey (CSS), and EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) survey at baseline, and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after ESS. A total of 113 patients who underwent ESS with BITR were compared to 788 patients who underwent ESS without BITR. Results Significant demographic and comorbid differences between BITR and non-BITR cohorts included age (41 vs 49 years, p < 0.0001), presence of asthma (19% vs 36%, p < 0.0001), prior sinus surgery (22% vs 53%, p < 0.0001), and concurrent septoplasty (80% vs 53%, p < 0.0001), respectively. On univariate analysis, patients who underwent ESS with or without BITR were found to have statistically significant improvement in disease-specific (SNOT-22 and CSS) and general (EQ-5D) QOL scores at years 1 through 4 (p < 0.05). On multivariate regression, however, the performance of BITR was not associated with any improvements in these outcome measures. Conclusion Patients undergoing ESS achieve similar long-term improvement in both disease-specific and general QOL regardless of the performance of concurrent BITR. (C) 2019 ARS-AAOA, LLC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available