4.3 Article

Practice patterns in pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis: A survey of the American Rhinologic Society

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY & ALLERGY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 418-423

出版社

OCEAN SIDE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2016.30.4373

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stanford University
  2. West Virginia University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The management of pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis (PCRS) is evolving. Objective: To assess current practice patterns of members of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) in managing PCRS. Methods: A 27-item Web-based survey on treatment of PCRS was electronically distributed to the ARS membership. Results: The survey was completed by 67 members, 40% of whom had completed a rhinology fellowship. The most frequently used medical therapies as part of initial treatment for PCRS were nasal saline solution irrigation, (90%), topical nasal steroids (93%), oral antibiotics (52%), and oral steroids (20%). For initial surgical therapy, 90% performed adenoidectomy; in addition, 31% also performed sinus lavage, 17% performed balloon catheter dilation (BCD), and 17% performed endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Sixty percent performed adenoidectomy before obtaining computed tomography imaging. When initial surgical treatment failed, 85% performed traditional ESS. In patients with pansinusitis, 50% of the respondents performed frontal sinusotomy and 70% performed sphenoidotomy. BCD was not frequently used; overall, 66% never or rarely used it, 20% sometimes used it, 12% usually used it, and 3% always or almost always used BCD. Conclusions: Most aspects of PCRS management among ARS members were aligned with published consensus statements. Adenoidectomy was almost always included as part of first-line surgical treatment but was also combined with adjunctive surgical procedures with moderate frequency. ESS was performed by a minority of rhinologists as a primary procedure for medically refractory PCRS but was favored when previous surgery failed. BCD was uncommonly used in PCRS.

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

4.3
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