Evaluation of outcomes of septoplasty with NOSE and SNOT questionnaires

1Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of septoplasty with nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) and sinonasal outcome test (SNOT22) questionnaires. Material and Methods: In this study 41 patients undergoing septoplasty were enrolled in the study group. Preoperative and postoperative NOSE and SNOT 22 scores were recorded, and these scores were compared with individual patient symptom scores, which were scored with visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-100). The NOSE, SNOT 22, and VAS preoperative and postoperative scores were compared. The correlations among NOSE, SNOT 22 scores and VAS were evaluated. Results: Preoperative and postoperative median NOSE scores were 14 (0-20) and 2 (0-17) respectively. There was statistically significant difference when preoperative and postoperative scores were compared (p<0.05). Preoperative and postopereative SNOT 22 scores were 57 (22-88) and 35 (22-88) respectively. Postoperative SNOT 22 score was statistically significantly smaller (p<0.05). Preoperative and postoperative VAS scores were 75 (25-100) and 25 (0-50) respectively. Postoperative VAS scores were statistically significantly smaller than preoperative scores (p<0-05). The correlation between the changes of VAS scores and NOSE scores was moderate and it was statistically significant (p<0.05). The correlation between the changes of VAS scores and SNOT 22 scores was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: In this study we found that the NOSE questionnaire score was correlated with patient symptoms. Therefore, the NOSE questionnaire can be useful for evaluating septoplasty outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Demirci, Ş., Tüzüner, A., Açikgöz, C., Aydoğan, F., & Arslan, N. (2015). Evaluation of outcomes of septoplasty with NOSE and SNOT questionnaires. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 35(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2015-43615

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free