We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Risk factors and outcomes for primary, revision, and modified Lothrop (Draf III) frontal sinus surgery.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this level 4, retrospective cohort study was to detail the outcomes of primary, revision, and endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure (EMLP) (Draf III) frontal sinus surgery and evaluate whether risk factors would help determine which patients would benefit from which procedures.
METHODS: The study used a retrospective chart review. Endoscopic assessment of frontal ostium patency and patient reported symptoms were prospectively collected on patients who underwent frontal sinusotomy between January 2003 and December 2009. High-risk cohorts were studied to assess their response to standard endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared with EMLP.
RESULTS: A total of 339 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent either primary or revision endoscopic frontal sinus surgery. The average ± standard deviation (SD) length of follow-up was 20.8 ± 18.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0-22.9) months. Postsurgical recurrence of disease with persistence of symptoms requiring an EMLP occurred in 9 patients in the primary group and 38 in the revision group. The highest risk groups for failure of standard frontal sinusotomy were patients with nasal polyps, asthma, Lund-Mackay score >16, and frontal ostium size <4 mm (relative risk = 9.9, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Patients with underlying asthma and polyposis as well as narrow frontal ostia and extensive radiological disease have a high failure rate from standard endoscopic frontal sinusotomy. In this patient group consideration should be given to offering the patient a primary EMLP procedure, which has excellent success rates with low risks and low morbidity.
METHODS: The study used a retrospective chart review. Endoscopic assessment of frontal ostium patency and patient reported symptoms were prospectively collected on patients who underwent frontal sinusotomy between January 2003 and December 2009. High-risk cohorts were studied to assess their response to standard endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared with EMLP.
RESULTS: A total of 339 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent either primary or revision endoscopic frontal sinus surgery. The average ± standard deviation (SD) length of follow-up was 20.8 ± 18.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0-22.9) months. Postsurgical recurrence of disease with persistence of symptoms requiring an EMLP occurred in 9 patients in the primary group and 38 in the revision group. The highest risk groups for failure of standard frontal sinusotomy were patients with nasal polyps, asthma, Lund-Mackay score >16, and frontal ostium size <4 mm (relative risk = 9.9, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Patients with underlying asthma and polyposis as well as narrow frontal ostia and extensive radiological disease have a high failure rate from standard endoscopic frontal sinusotomy. In this patient group consideration should be given to offering the patient a primary EMLP procedure, which has excellent success rates with low risks and low morbidity.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app