4.2 Article

Novel endoscopic scoring system after sinus surgery

Journal

AURIS NASUS LARYNX
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 450-454

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2014.05.004

Keywords

Post-operative evaluation; Post-operative endoscopic score; CT score; Chronic rhinosinusitis; Endoscopic sinus surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To propose a simple post-operative endoscopic scoring system for use after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), and to demonstrate the usefulness of this approach. Methods: Subjects comprised 116 patients (84 men, 32 women; mean age, 54 years) with CRS who were analyzed endoscopically and radiologically after ESS between 2006 and 2012. The study was designed as a case series with planned data collection in the setting of university medical centers. Patients were followed-up for >= 6 months after ESS (mean, 13.1 months). Both pre- and post-operative computed tomography (CT) findings of each sinus and olfactory cleft (OC) were scored according to the Lund-Mackay scoring system: 0, normal; 1, partially; or 2, completely occupied. CT score represents the total score expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score (12 points per side). Post-operative endoscopic score (E score, %) was calculated as the maximum score according to physical findings on each operated sinus and OC: 0, normal; 1, partially diseased; or 2, completely closed. Post-operative course using E score was verified by comparison with the Lund-Kennedy (L-K) scoring system. Results: E score was easily and quickly determined. Interclass correlation coefficient among 10 otolaryngologists indicated high-level inter-rater reliability (0.922). E score correlated strongly with both CT score (n = 116, p < 0.0001, r(s), = 0.755) and L-K score (n = 79, p < 0.0001, r(s) = 0.723). Conclusion: Endoscopic evaluation using E score for sinuses and OCs after ESS is a useful method, together with L-K score for the nasal cavity and radiological study. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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