4.4 Article

Predictive factors in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery for odontogenic sinusitis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages 697-700

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21736

Keywords

odontogenic; sinusitis; endoscopic sinus surgery; dental infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundOdontogenic sinusitis (OS) presents a therapeutic dilemma. Evidence is lacking whether dental treatment alone is sufficient or whether patients will eventually require endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Our aim was to identify predictors of OS patients undergoing ESS. MethodsRetrospective review performed of OS patients (n = 43) analyzing multiple factors including age, sex, symptoms, prior dental procedures, treatment, diabetes, immunosuppression, smoking history, retained dental hardware, oral-antral fistula (OAF), and Lund-Mackay scores (LMSs). Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank sum, and logistic regression analyses were performed. ResultsCommon presenting symptoms included facial pressure, discolored nasal drainage, and foul smell/taste. Half of patients presented either after a recent dental procedure or with dental complaints. Forty-eight percent required ESS after failing medical and dental therapy alone. Total LMS was significantly higher in the group undergoing ESS (8.3 vs 3.7; p = 0.0003). Multivariate analysis showed 2 significant predictors of undergoing ESS: (1) OMC involvement (OR 37.3, p = 0.003) and prior dental procedure (OR 7.4, p = 0.03). All patients with OAF or retained dental hardware required ESS. ConclusionForty-eight percent of patients who presented with OS underwent ESS for symptom control and prevention of complications. Patients who underwent ESS had significantly higher total LMS than those who did not. In multivariate analysis, prior dental procedures and OMC involvement significantly increased the likelihood of requiring ESS. (C) 2016 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