4.2 Article

Outcomes in endoscopic sinus surgery: olfaction, nose scale and quality of life in a prospective cohort study

Journal

CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 798-803

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/coa.12665

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on olfactory function in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) and to compare the nasal obstruction and symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale before and after surgery. DesignA prospective cohort study SettingRoyal National Throat and Nose and Ear Hospital, London UK. ParticipantsOne hundred and thirteen patients with CRS; 60 CRSwNP and 53 CRSsNP. Outcome measurementsOlfaction was measured using both the University of Pennsylvania Smell Investigation Test (UPSIT) and the sense of smell' visual analogue scale (VAS). The NOSE scale, the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT 22) and the Lund-Kennedy (LK) surgeon reported scores were also measured pre- and postoperatively at 6 months. ResultsThe UPSIT psychophysical measurement significantly improved following ESS in the CRSwNP subgroup as did the patients perceived VAS sense of smell. However, in the CRSsNP subgroup, the improved VAS and UPSIT measurements were not significant. The NOSE, SNOT 22 and LK scores all improved significantly. The olfactory improvement as measured by the UPSIT correlated to the SNOT-22, but a correlation between the NOSE score and UPSIT was not found. ConclusionsEndoscopic sinus surgery significantly improved the patient's perceived and measured sense of smell in the CRSwNP subgroup which is the most surgically responsive CRS subgroup. Additionally, improved olfaction in the CRSwNP subgroup is most likely to improve the patient's quality of life. Endoscopic sinus surgery significantly improved the NOSE scale in both CRS subgroups at 6 months following surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available