Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Versus Balloon Sinuplasty with Ethmoidectomy: A 2-year Analysis in Pediatric Chronic Rhinosinusitis

14Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

To evaluate the 2-year post-operative outcomes of pediatric patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) treated with balloon catheter sinuplasty (BCS) and ethmoidectomy compared to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Two-group, retrospective cohort study of 28 children with CRS was performed. Of these 28 participants, 15 were treated with traditional FESS (53.6 %) and 13 (46.4 %) underwent traditional ethmoidectomy with balloon sinuplasty. Pre-operative and 2-year postoperative total symptom scores and medications were compared. To examine the potential long-term differences in surgical outcomes and surgical procedure on symptom outcome, one-tailed Chi square analyses were employed. The mean age of the children examined was 9.3 (SD = SD = 4.1; range 3–18) and 61.9 % were male. Pre-operative symptomatology, medication and Lund Mackay scores were evaluated for both groups and no significant differences were identified. Overall, 73.3 % of children that underwent traditional FESS and 76.9 % of those who had BCS with ethmoidectomy reported significant long-term improvement in at least one of their pre-operative sinus complaints. Our data suggests that both BCS with ethmoidectomy and traditional FESS are effective treatment options for uncomplicated CRS and result in long-term alleviation of core sinus complaints, as well as decreased sinus related medication use. Larger prospective studies are needed to further evaluate these procedures.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thottam, P. J., Metz, C. M., Kieu, M. C., Dworkin, J., Jagini, J., Bangiyev, J. N., & Mehta, D. (2016). Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Versus Balloon Sinuplasty with Ethmoidectomy: A 2-year Analysis in Pediatric Chronic Rhinosinusitis. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 68(3), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0839-2

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