Kim Do Hyun, Basurrah Mohammed Abdullah, Kim Soo Whan, Kim Sung Won
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Aug;17(3):241-252. doi: 10.21053/ceo.2023.00038. Epub 2024 Jul 4.
Patients with empty nose syndrome typically experience paradoxical nasal congestion, nasal dryness, epistaxis, and suffocation. Conservative management is generally preferred for empty nose syndrome. However, some patients continue to experience persistent symptoms. When symptoms do not resolve, surgical options are considered. Therefore, we reviewed the surgical and regenerative treatment options for empty nose syndrome.
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from the earliest date provided in the database until December 2022. This review included studies that assessed treatment outcomes using patient symptom scores, including the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20, -22, and -25) and the Empty Nose Syndrome 6-Item Questionnaire, supplemented by various clinical examinations.
Twenty-eight studies were analyzed. Various materials were utilized, including submucosal injectable materials, allografts/xenografts/cadaveric implants, autologous implants, and synthetic implants. The polyethylene implant was the most commonly used (23.3%), followed by autologous, homologous, or cadaveric costal cartilage (20%). The anterior-inferior lateral nasal wall was the most frequent site of administration. Most studies indicated that surgical intervention led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes, as evidenced by endoscopic exams, acoustic rhinometry, and computed tomography scans, along with patient-reported enhancements in nasal symptoms, psychological well-being, and overall health-related quality of life. However, several studies found no improvement in certain psychological-related questionnaires or saccharin transit times. The average follow-up duration was 12.0 months (range, 2.0-27.6 months). Only two studies reported postoperative adverse effects.
Several surgical options and recent tissue regeneration techniques have demonstrated efficacy in treating empty nose syndrome. However, more detailed investigations involving a larger number of participants and a randomized control study are necessary to establish a standardized treatment protocol for patients with empty nose syndrome.
空鼻综合征患者通常会出现反常性鼻充血、鼻干燥、鼻出血和窒息感。空鼻综合征一般首选保守治疗。然而,一些患者的症状持续存在。当症状无法缓解时,会考虑手术治疗。因此,我们回顾了空鼻综合征的手术及再生治疗方案。
检索了PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane对照试验注册库和谷歌学术,检索时间从各数据库提供的最早日期至2022年12月。本综述纳入了使用患者症状评分评估治疗结果的研究,包括鼻-鼻窦结局测试(SNOT-20、-22和-25)以及空鼻综合征6项问卷,并辅以各种临床检查。
分析了28项研究。使用了多种材料,包括可注射的黏膜下材料、同种异体移植物/异种移植物/尸体植入物、自体植入物和合成植入物。聚乙烯植入物使用最为频繁(23.3%),其次是自体、同种或尸体肋软骨(20%)。鼻外侧壁前下部分是最常见的给药部位。大多数研究表明,手术干预使临床结局得到显著改善,内镜检查、鼻声反射测量和计算机断层扫描均证明了这一点,同时患者报告的鼻症状、心理健康和整体健康相关生活质量也有所改善。然而,一些研究发现某些心理相关问卷或糖精转运时间并无改善。平均随访时间为12.0个月(范围为2.0 - 27.6个月)。只有两项研究报告了术后不良反应。
几种手术方案和近期的组织再生技术已证明在治疗空鼻综合征方面有效。然而,需要进行更详细的研究,纳入更多参与者并开展随机对照研究,以建立空鼻综合征患者的标准化治疗方案。