4.4 Review

Unmet challenges in septoplasty-nordic studies from a uniform healthcare and geographical area

期刊

FRONTIERS IN SURGERY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1061440

关键词

PROM (patient reported outcome measures); septoplasty outcomes; quality register; nordic; review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review of studies from the Nordic countries over the past decade shows that septoplasty is effective in relieving nasal obstruction. However, the lack of standardization in patient selection, surgical methods, and follow-up procedures leads to a 25% failure rate in septoplasty surgery.
PurposeNasal septoplasty is one of the most common surgical procedures in otorhinolaryngology and optimising both patient selection and the surgery is a challenge. The Nordic countries have similar public healthcare systems and comparable populations in terms of size. MethodsThis is a review of studies of outcome and predictors related to septoplasty from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, published during the last decade. The aim of this review was to identify areas in need of further research to meet the challenges of septoplasty in the Nordic countries with reference to international data. ResultsPostoperative patient satisfaction at 6-12 months was reported in around 2/3 of the patients and well in line with international data. Patients with more severe symptoms had a higher chance of improvement. Lack of standardisation in patient selection, surgical methods and skills, and follow up procedures, still makes it difficult to explain the 25% failure rate in septoplasty surgery. ConclusionThis review of the Nordic studies from the last decade shows that septoplasty in general is effective in relieving nasal obstruction. There is a need for studies addressing the standardisation of diagnostic tools and algorithms and the systematic and continuous implementation of follow-up of the surgical results at both departmental and personal level. This includes an awareness of how surgical skills in septoplasty are obtained and maintained.

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

4.4
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