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.
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).
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.
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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Fettman N, Sanford T, Sindwani R (2009) Surgical management of the deviated septum: techniques in septoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(2):241–252
Hwang PH, McLaughlin RB, Lanza DC et al (1999) Endoscopic septoplasty: indications, technique, and results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(5):678–682
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
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
Holmstrom M (2010) The use of objective measures in selecting patients for septal surgery. Rhinology 48:387–393
Vogt K, Jalowayski AA (2010) The objective and measurement principles of rhinomanometry. Rhinology (suppl) 21:5–6
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
Gliklich RE, Metson R (1995) Techniques for outcomes research in chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope 105:387–390
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
Benninger MS, Senior BA (1997) The development of the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:1175–1179
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
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
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
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
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)
Gupta N (2005) Endoscopic septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 57(3):240–243
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
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)
Bothra R, Mathur NN (2009) Comparative evaluation of conventional versus endoscopic septoplasty for limited septal deviation and spur. J Laryngol Otol 123:737–741
Paradis J, Rotemberger BW (2011) Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded randomized, controlled trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 40:28–33
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
Talluri KK, Motru B, Avvaru K et al (2014) Correction of deviated nasal septum: conventional vs endoscopic septoplasty. IOSR-JDMS 13(5):14–15
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
Kaushik S, Vashistha S, Jain NK (2013) Endoscopic vs conventional septoplasty: a comparative study. Clin Rinol Int J 6(2):84–87
Suligavi SS, Darade MK, Guttigoli BD (2010) Endoscopic septoplasty: advantages and disadvantages. AIJCR 3:27–30
Pons Y, Champagne C, Genestier L et al (2015) Endoscopic septoplasty: tips and pearls. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 132(6):353–356
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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