4.5 Article

Characterisation of patients with endoscopy-negative, computer tomography-negative midfacial segment pain using the sino-nasal outcome test

期刊

RHINOLOGY
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 78-83

出版社

INT RHINOLOGIC SOC
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin13.123

关键词

facial pain; endoscopy; CT; sinusitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to qualitatively characterise patients with midfacial segment pain (MSP) using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT). The data will provide a detailed overview of the physical and psychological impact on patients' well-being, and how it compares with the normal, healthy population. Methods: Suitable patients were prospectively identified from the Multi-disciplinary Facial Pain Clinic at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, based on the diagnostic criteria for MSP. The pre-treatment SNOT-22 of these patients were also compared to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and normal healthy volunteers. Results: Twenty-nine consecutive patients with a diagnosis of MSP were identified, and compared with 30 CRS patients and 34 healthy volunteers. The average SNOT-22 scores of MSP and CRS patients were higher than normal healthy volunteers. Patients with CRS had the highest rhinological subscale SNOT scores compared to normal healthy volunteers and MSP. Conversely, the reported ear and facial symptoms of MSP patients were most unfavourable. A similar trend was observed in reported sleep function where MSP patients recorded higher subscale scores than the other two cohorts. The subscale mean score for psychological function of MSP patients was not significant when compared to the mean score of patients diagnosed with CRS. Conclusion: MSP has an adverse impact on both physical and psychological well-being. The subtle differences in the SNOT sub-scores between MSP and CRS have provided greater insight into the character and disease impact of MSP. We propose that the SNOT may be suitably utilised in MSP to document disease severity and measure response to treatment.

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