4.5 Article

Factors Affecting Time to Revision Sinus Surgery for Nasal Polyps: A 25-Year Experience

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 124, 期 1, 页码 29-33

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24213

关键词

Nasal polyps; chronic rhinosinusitis; endoscopic sinus surgery; revision sinus surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/HypothesisSurgical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is often followed by polyp regrowth with return of symptoms. The purpose of this study is to identify clinical factors that influence the time interval to revision sinus surgery in patients with nasal polyps. Study DesignRetrospective cohort study. MethodsRecords of 299 individuals who underwent two or more surgeries for the diagnosis of nasal polyps by the senior author (RM) from 1987 through 2011 were reviewed. The time between surgical interventions were compared to patient demographics, comorbidities, endoscopic examination, computed tomography (CT) stage, extent of surgery, and pathologic findings. ResultsThe mean time interval between polyp surgeries was 4.873.61 years (range 0.7-18.6 years). The median time to revision surgery was shorter in patients who smoked compared to nonsmokers (2.82 vs. 4.31 years, respectively, P=.022) and longer in patients who underwent middle turbinate resection rather than preservation (4.56 vs. 3.93 years, respectively, P=.048). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed these findings, but the beneficial effect of turbinectomy appeared to dissipate by 8 years. Neither a history of asthma nor advanced CT stage influenced the time to revision surgery. ConclusionThe time course between sinus surgeries in patients with regrowth of nasal polyps appears to be affected by certain modifiable extrinsic factors, including smoking on the part of the patient and operative technique on the part of the surgeon. The performance of middle turbinate resection during sinus surgery appears to extend the time interval until a revision procedure is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据