Harrill Willard C, Pillsbury Harold C, McGuirt W Frederick, Stewart Michael G
Carolina Ear, Nose & Throat Head and Neck Surgery Center, Hickory, NC 28601, USA.
Laryngoscope. 2007 Nov;117(11):1912-9. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181271414.
The symptoms and treatments for nasal obstruction are numerous and common. Yet, a consensus on a surgical approach or, even more importantly, how to define the success of any approach is lacking in the literature. A disease-specific outcomes instrument recently developed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology, known as the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale, has allowed for a validated, uniform method to compare different treatments for nasal obstruction.
Using the NOSE scale, we prospectively compared the use of bilateral radiofrequency inferior turbinate reduction (BRITR) only with that of BRITR with septoplasty in the treatment of nasal obstruction caused by the combination of septal deviation and turbinate hypertrophy. NOSE scores were obtained pretreatment and at 3 month and 6 month follow-up.
Our data demonstrated significant improvement from baseline after 6 months for the NOSE scores in both the BRITR (P < .001) and BRITR/septoplasty groups (P = .023). No statistical difference was noted in the amount of postoperative improvement between the two treatment groups (P = .304). Both groups did demonstrate a large, clinically important effect using a distribution-based assessment of clinical change. Despite equal clinically effective results, estimated costs for each treatment option differed significantly, with the office-based BRITR only group providing significant cost savings compared with the hospital-based BRITR/septoplasty group.
This study suggests that BRITR should be considered as an initial treatment option for nasal obstruction rather than a septoplasty with turbinate reduction in patients with the clinical findings of both a septal deviation and turbinate hypertrophy after failure of medical therapy.
鼻阻塞的症状和治疗方法繁多且常见。然而,文献中缺乏关于手术方法的共识,甚至更重要的是,缺乏如何定义任何方法成功与否的共识。美国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学会最近开发的一种针对特定疾病的结局评估工具,即鼻阻塞症状评估(NOSE)量表,提供了一种经过验证的、统一的方法来比较不同的鼻阻塞治疗方法。
我们使用NOSE量表,前瞻性地比较了单纯双侧射频下鼻甲消融术(BRITR)与BRITR联合鼻中隔成形术在治疗鼻中隔偏曲和鼻甲肥大共同导致的鼻阻塞中的应用。在治疗前以及随访3个月和6个月时获取NOSE评分。
我们的数据显示,BRITR组(P <.001)和BRITR/鼻中隔成形术组(P =.023)的NOSE评分在6个月时均较基线有显著改善。两组术后改善程度无统计学差异(P =.304)。通过基于分布的临床变化评估,两组均显示出较大的、具有临床意义的效果。尽管临床效果相同,但每种治疗方案的估计成本差异显著,单纯门诊BRITR组与住院BRITR/鼻中隔成形术组相比,成本显著降低。
本研究表明,对于药物治疗失败且有鼻中隔偏曲和鼻甲肥大临床表现的患者,应将BRITR视为鼻阻塞的初始治疗选择,而非鼻甲缩小联合鼻中隔成形术。