4.5 Article

Surgical treatment for nasal polyposis: predictors of outcome

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 272, Issue 12, Pages 3735-3743

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3519-7

Keywords

Nasal polyps; Interleukin-5; Vascular endothelial growth factors; Immunoglobulin E; Nasal surgical procedures; CT score; Eosinophil infiltration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nasal polyps recur in approximately one-third of patients after surgical treatment. It would be beneficial to be able to predict the patients in whom we might expect recurrence and to predict the clinical outcome after surgery. The study included 30 patients operated for nasal polyps. Removed polyps were analyzed by immunohistochemical analysis for IL-5, IgE, vascular endothelial growth factor and eosinophilic infiltration. These parameters together with preoperative CT score were used as independent variables, and subjective score improvement after 2 years was used as a dependent variable in multiple linear regression analysis. Furthermore, the patients were divided into two groups: low and high polyp tissue immunoreactivity. The Chi-squared test was used to determine whether polyp immunoreactivity influences polyp recurrence and subjective score. Preoperative CT score had a slightly positive correlation with subjective score after 2 years. High eosinophil infiltration significantly predicted a higher risk for polyp recurrence. High IL-5 positivity was related to greater risk for polyp recurrence than low IL-5 reactivity but not significantly. IgE and VEGF reactivity in polyp specimens did not have any effect on polyp recurrence. High eosinophilic infiltration in polyps can predict worse outcome after surgical treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. IgE and VEGF do not have prognostic significance to polyp recurrence after surgery. The preoperative extent of disease measured by CT score had a slightly positive correlation with worse outcome after 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available