Skip to main content

Endoscopic versus conventional septoplasty: objective/subjective data on 276 patients

Abstract

Purpose

Endoscopic approach represents a valid alternative to conventional septoplasty. The aim of this study is to analyze the objective and subjective data on 276 patients, who underwent traditional (147) or endoscopic (129) septoplasty.

Methods

This is a prospective observational study on 276 consecutive patients affected by deviated nasal septum (DNS), who underwent isolated septoplasty between 2011 and 2018. 147 of them were treated using an “open” approach, while 129 were treated with an endoscopic approach. The two groups were compared 3 months after surgery: the objective results (complications such as bleeding, hematoma, pain, synechiae, septal tears and incomplete correction), objective (rhinomanometric data) and subjective measurements (NOSE questionnaires).

Results

Both techniques are effective in decreasing nasal obstruction and discharge. Complications such as pain, synechiae, early postoperative bleeding, septal tears and incomplete correction are less frequent in the endoscopic group (p < 0.05). The rhinomanometric analysis reveal improvement in both groups without statistical differences. Subjective questionnaires show a good symptoms relief with an improved quality of life in all 276 patients without statistical difference between the two gropus.

Conclusions

Both techniques are effective in reducing nasal obstruction and related symptoms with fewer overall complications in the endoscopic approach. The endoscope provides improved field of view, less mucosal damages and a more anatomic dissection. Finally, such approach can be a valuable teaching tool for assistants, residents and students.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Fettman N, Sanford T, Sindwani R (2009) Surgical management of the deviated septum: techniques in septoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(2):241–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hwang PH, McLaughlin RB, Lanza DC et al (1999) Endoscopic septoplasty: indications, technique, and results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(5):678–682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hong CJ, Monteiro E, Badhiwala J et al (2016) Open versus endoscopic septoplasty techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 30(6):436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM et al (2004) Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(3):283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Holmstrom M (2010) The use of objective measures in selecting patients for septal surgery. Rhinology 48:387–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vogt K, Jalowayski AA (2010) The objective and measurement principles of rhinomanometry. Rhinology (suppl) 21:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL et al (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gliklich RE, Metson R (1995) Techniques for outcomes research in chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope 105:387–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH (1991) Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Exp Allergy 21:77–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benninger MS, Senior BA (1997) The development of the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:1175–1179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Piccirillo JF, Merritt MG, Richards ML (2001) Psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kemker BJ, Corey JP, Branca J et al (1999) Development of the Allergy Outcome Survey for allergic rhinitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:603–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung BJ, Batra PS, Citardi MJ et al (2007) Endoscopic septoplasty: revisitation of the technique, indications, and outcomes. Am J Rhinol 21(3):307–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Champagne C, Ballivet de Régloix S, Genestier L et al (2016) Endoscopic vs. conventional septoplasty: a review of the literature. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):43–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gulati SP, Wadhera R, Ahuja N et al (2009) Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 61(1):27–29 (published online 2009 Mar 31)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta N (2005) Endoscopic septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 57(3):240–243

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta M, Motwani G (2005) Comparative study of endoscopic aided septoplasty and traditional septoplasty in posterior nasal septal deviations. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 57(4):309–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sathyaki DC, Geetha C, Munishwara GB et al (2014) A comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 66(2):155–161 (published online 2013 Nov 24)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bothra R, Mathur NN (2009) Comparative evaluation of conventional versus endoscopic septoplasty for limited septal deviation and spur. J Laryngol Otol 123:737–741

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paradis J, Rotemberger BW (2011) Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded randomized, controlled trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 40:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  21. Syed Mosaddaque I, Hussain SI, Bhojani MJ (2013) A comparative study of endoscopic verses conventional septoplasty: an analysis of 110 cases. Pak J Surg 29(3):220–223

    Google Scholar 

  22. Talluri KK, Motru B, Avvaru K et al (2014) Correction of deviated nasal septum: conventional vs endoscopic septoplasty. IOSR-JDMS 13(5):14–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jain L, Jain M, Chouhan AN et al (2011) Conventional septoplasty verses endoscopic septoplasty: a comparative study. People’s J Sci Res 4(2):24–28

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kaushik S, Vashistha S, Jain NK (2013) Endoscopic vs conventional septoplasty: a comparative study. Clin Rinol Int J 6(2):84–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Suligavi SS, Darade MK, Guttigoli BD (2010) Endoscopic septoplasty: advantages and disadvantages. AIJCR 3:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pons Y, Champagne C, Genestier L et al (2015) Endoscopic septoplasty: tips and pearls. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 132(6):353–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria Dell’Era.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garzaro, M., Dell’Era, V., Riva, G. et al. Endoscopic versus conventional septoplasty: objective/subjective data on 276 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276, 1707–1711 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05393-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05393-w

Keywords

  • Endoscopic septoplasty
  • Septal deviation
  • Endoscopic septoplasty outcomes
  • Traditional septoplasty
  • Comparison