Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:12:08.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outcomes of septal surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2007

N J Calder  and
I R C Swan
N J Calder*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
I R C Swan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research (Scottish Section), Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr N J Calder, 47 Park Terrace Lane, Glasgow G3 6BQ, Scotland, UK. Fax: 0141 2010865 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the change in health-related quality of life following septal surgery.

Study design:

Post-intervention, health-related quality of life questionnaire.

Participants:

Adult patients undergoing septal surgery, recruited from two sources (the Scottish ENT outcomes study and the North Glasgow National Health Service Trust) over an 18-month period.

Main outcome measure:

Glasgow benefit inventory score.

Results:

A total of 149 Glasgow benefit inventories were returned. Of these, 13 were incomplete and were thus excluded, leaving 136 to be analysed. The response rate from the Scottish ENT outcomes study patients was 55 per cent and the response rate from the North Glasgow National Health Service Trust patients was 41 per cent, giving an overall response rate of 49 per cent. The mean Glasgow benefit inventory score was 11.3 (standard deviation 20, 95 per cent confidence interval 7.8 to 14.7). This result was similar to those of other studies using the Glasgow benefit inventory to assess septal surgery outcomes.

Conclusion:

Patients reported minimal improvement in their health-related quality of life following septal surgery.

Keywords

Outcome AssessmentsNasal SeptumSurgical Techniques
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 121 , Issue 11 , November 2007 , pp. 1060 - 1063
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the Scottish Otolaryngology Society meeting, 25th November 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland, and the British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology, 6th July 2006, Birmingham, UK.

References

1ISD Scotland. http://www.isdscotland.org [10 January 2006]Google Scholar
2Stewart, MG, Smith, TL, Weaver, EM, Witsell, DL, Yueh, B, Hannley, MT et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:283–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Buckland, JR, Thomas, S, Harries, PG. Can the Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) be used as a reliable outcome measure for successful septal surgery? Clin Otolaryngol 2003;28:43–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Arunachalam, PS, Kitcher, E, Gray, J, Wilson, JA. Nasal septal surgery: evaluation of symptomatic and general health outcomes. Clin Otolaryngol 2001;26:367–70Google Scholar
5Siegel, NS, Gliklich, RE, Taghizadeh, F, Chang, Y. Outcomes of septoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:228–32Google Scholar
6Pirila, T, Tikanto, J. Unilateral and bilateral effects of nasal septum surgery demonstrated with acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and subjective assessment. Am J Rhinol 2001;15:127–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–42Google Scholar
8MRC Institute of Hearing Research. http://www.ihr.mrc.ac.uk/scottish/products/ [30 October 2004]Google Scholar
9Uppal, S, Mistry, H, Nadiq, S, Back, G, Coatesworth, A. Evaluation of patient benefit from nasal septal surgery for nasal obstruction. Auris Nasus Larynx 2005;32:129–37Google Scholar
10Konstantinidis, I, Triaridis, S, Triaridis, A, Karagiannidis, K, Kontzoglou, G. Long term results following nasal septal surgery: focus on patients' satisfaction. Auris Nasus Larynx 2005;32:369–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11McKiernan, DC, Banfield, G, Kumar, R, Hinton, AE. Patient benefit from functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2001;26:50–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Mehanna, H, Mills, J, Kelly, B, McGarry, GW. Benefit from endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:464–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davidson, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Bhattacharya, N, Kepnes, LJ. Economic benefit of tonsillectomy in adults with chronic tonsillitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:983–8Google Scholar
15Banerjee, A, Dempster, JH. Laser palatoplasty evaluation of patient benefit using the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:601–4Google Scholar
16Bakri, SJ, Carney, AS, Robinson, K, Jones, NS, Downes, RN. Quality of life outcomes following dacryocystorhinostomy: external and endonasal laser techniques compared. Orbit 1999;18:83–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Santarius, T, D'Sousa, AR, Zeitoun, HM, Cruickshank, G, Morgan, DW. Audit of headache following resection of acoustic neuroma using three different techniques of suboccipital approach. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) [in French] 2000;121:75–8Google ScholarPubMed
18Dinis, PB, Haider, H. Septoplasty: long term evaluation of results. Am J Otolaryngol 2002;23:85–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Samad, I, Stevens, HE, Maloney, A. The efficacy of nasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol 1992;21:88–91Google Scholar
20Ridenour, BD. The nasal septum. In: Cummings, CW ed. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 3rd edn.St Louis, Missouri: Mosby-Year Book, 1998;2:940Google Scholar