Koskinen Anni, Mattila Petri, Myller Jyri, Penttilä Matti, Silvola Juha, Alastalo Ismo, Huhtala Heini, Hytönen Maija, Toppila-Salmi Sanna
a Haartman Institute, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
b Department of Otorhinolaryngology , University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital , Helsinki , Finland.
Acta Otolaryngol. 2017 Feb;137(2):202-206. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2016.1227476. Epub 2016 Sep 20.
In terms of operation time, anesthesia method, and low complication rate, ESS and balloon sinuplasty seemed comparable. The advantages of balloon sinuplasty were shown to be shortness of sick leave, possibility to be performed as an in-office procedure, and lower adhesion formation.
Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has been considered as a treatment of choice for persistent chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). During the last decade balloon sinuplasty has been introduced as an alternative technique to dilate the ostium. Although balloon sinuplasty is considered relatively safe and efficient, comparative evidence of its putative intra-operative and post-operative advantages remain limited.
The aim of this retrospective controlled study was to evaluate intra-operative factors and early post-operative outcomes among CRS patients who had undergone maxillary sinus operation with either balloon sinuplasty or ESS technique.
Data were collected from 208 patients with CRS treated either with ESS or balloon sinuplasty during the years 2008-2010. Intra- and peri-operative factors were collected from patient records of the patients who met the inclusion criteria (n = 39 in ESS group and n = 36 in balloon sinuplasty group).
There was no significant difference in operation time and anesthesia method between the two groups. No complications occurred with either technique. All ESS procedures and 67% of the balloon sinuplasty procedures were done in the hospital setting, whereas 33% of the balloon sinuplasty procedures were done in the office setting. The duration of sick leave and the number of patients with adhesions were significantly higher in the ESS group compared to the balloon sinuplasty group.
在手术时间、麻醉方法及低并发症发生率方面，内镜鼻窦手术（ESS）和球囊鼻窦成形术似乎相当。球囊鼻窦成形术的优势在于病假时间短、可在门诊进行以及粘连形成较少。
内镜鼻窦手术（ESS）一直被视为持续性慢性鼻窦炎（CRS）的首选治疗方法。在过去十年中，球囊鼻窦成形术作为一种扩张窦口的替代技术被引入。尽管球囊鼻窦成形术被认为相对安全有效，但其术中及术后假定优势的比较证据仍然有限。
这项回顾性对照研究的目的是评估接受上颌窦球囊鼻窦成形术或ESS技术的CRS患者的术中因素及术后早期结果。
收集2008 - 2010年期间接受ESS或球囊鼻窦成形术治疗的208例CRS患者的数据。从符合纳入标准的患者病历中收集术中和围手术期因素（ESS组n = 39例，球囊鼻窦成形术组n = 36例）。
两组之间的手术时间和麻醉方法无显著差异。两种技术均未发生并发症。所有ESS手术及67%的球囊鼻窦成形术在医院进行，而33%的球囊鼻窦成形术在门诊进行。与球囊鼻窦成形术组相比，ESS组的病假时长和粘连患者数量显著更高。
