无鼻息肉的慢性鼻窦炎患者独立鼻窦球囊扩张术与内窥镜鼻窦手术的长期翻修率和医疗保健利用比较:球囊价值主张是否夸大了?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
David Hoying, Matthew J Kabalan, David C Kaelber, Raj Sindwani
{"title":"无鼻息肉的慢性鼻窦炎患者独立鼻窦球囊扩张术与内窥镜鼻窦手术的长期翻修率和医疗保健利用比较:球囊价值主张是否夸大了?","authors":"David Hoying, Matthew J Kabalan, David C Kaelber, Raj Sindwani","doi":"10.1177/19458924251377259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundPrevious research has reported inconsistent results when evaluating long-term revision rates of patients undergoing balloon sinus dilation (BSD) compared to primary endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).ObjectiveWe aimed to compare outcomes and long-term rates of revision surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsP) who underwent primary standalone BSD versus primary ESS. We also wanted to better understand the post-procedure utilization of major healthcare resources between these groups.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using the TriNetX platform to identify patients with CRSsP undergoing standalone BSD versus primary ESS. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance age and gender in each cohort. The primary outcome was revision ESS rates at 1 and 10 years. Secondary outcomes were rates of healthcare utilization and complications, including orbital, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and epistaxis within 90 days.ResultsAfter matching, each cohort had 2112 patients. At 1 year, the revision ESS rate was 3.5% in the balloon cohort and 3.5% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70-1.35). Extending follow-up to 10 years, revision rates were also not statistically different: 5.8% in the balloon cohort and 6.3% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19). Patients in the balloon cohort had a lower 90-day risk of inpatient encounters (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.38), CRS-related patient visits (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.71), diagnostic nasal endoscopies (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65), antibiotic prescriptions (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66), and corticosteroid prescriptions (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71).ConclusionNo significant difference was observed in revision ESS rates in CRSsP patients who underwent primary BSD versus ESS after 10 years in this large database study. Findings suggest that in appropriately selected patients, BSD offers a durable response and a favorable value proposition in the management of patients with CRSsP.</p>","PeriodicalId":7650,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","volume":" ","pages":"19458924251377259"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Long-Term Revision Rates and Health Care Utilization Between Standalone Balloon Sinus Dilation and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients Without Nasal Polyps: Is the Balloon Value Proposition Overinflated?\",\"authors\":\"David Hoying, Matthew J Kabalan, David C Kaelber, Raj Sindwani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19458924251377259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundPrevious research has reported inconsistent results when evaluating long-term revision rates of patients undergoing balloon sinus dilation (BSD) compared to primary endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).ObjectiveWe aimed to compare outcomes and long-term rates of revision surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsP) who underwent primary standalone BSD versus primary ESS. We also wanted to better understand the post-procedure utilization of major healthcare resources between these groups.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using the TriNetX platform to identify patients with CRSsP undergoing standalone BSD versus primary ESS. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance age and gender in each cohort. The primary outcome was revision ESS rates at 1 and 10 years. Secondary outcomes were rates of healthcare utilization and complications, including orbital, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and epistaxis within 90 days.ResultsAfter matching, each cohort had 2112 patients. At 1 year, the revision ESS rate was 3.5% in the balloon cohort and 3.5% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70-1.35). Extending follow-up to 10 years, revision rates were also not statistically different: 5.8% in the balloon cohort and 6.3% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19). Patients in the balloon cohort had a lower 90-day risk of inpatient encounters (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.38), CRS-related patient visits (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.71), diagnostic nasal endoscopies (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65), antibiotic prescriptions (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66), and corticosteroid prescriptions (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71).ConclusionNo significant difference was observed in revision ESS rates in CRSsP patients who underwent primary BSD versus ESS after 10 years in this large database study. Findings suggest that in appropriately selected patients, BSD offers a durable response and a favorable value proposition in the management of patients with CRSsP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"19458924251377259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924251377259\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924251377259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究报告了在评估接受球囊鼻窦扩张术(BSD)的患者与初次鼻窦内窥镜手术(ESS)的长期翻修率时不一致的结果。我们的目的是比较慢性鼻窦炎无鼻息肉(CRSsP)患者接受原发性独立BSD和原发性ESS的翻修手术的结果和长期发生率。我们还想更好地了解这些组之间术后主要医疗资源的利用情况。方法采用TriNetX平台进行回顾性队列研究,以确定CRSsP患者接受独立BSD和原发性ESS。在每个队列中进行1:1倾向评分匹配以平衡年龄和性别。主要结局是1年和10年的修订ESS率。次要结局是90天内的医疗保健使用率和并发症,包括眼眶、脑脊液(CSF)泄漏和鼻出血。结果匹配后,每个队列有2112例患者。1年后,球囊组和ESS组的修正ESS率分别为3.5%和3.5% (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70-1.35)。延长随访至10年,修正率也无统计学差异:球囊组5.8%,ESS组6.3% (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19)。球囊组患者90天内住院(OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.38)、crs相关患者就诊(OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.71)、诊断性鼻内窥镜检查(OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65)、抗生素处方(OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66)和皮质类固醇处方(OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71)的风险较低。结论:在这项大型数据库研究中,10年后接受原发性BSD的CRSsP患者的修正ESS率与ESS无显著差异。研究结果表明,在适当选择的患者中,BSD在CRSsP患者的管理中提供了持久的反应和有利的价值主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Long-Term Revision Rates and Health Care Utilization Between Standalone Balloon Sinus Dilation and Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients Without Nasal Polyps: Is the Balloon Value Proposition Overinflated?

BackgroundPrevious research has reported inconsistent results when evaluating long-term revision rates of patients undergoing balloon sinus dilation (BSD) compared to primary endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).ObjectiveWe aimed to compare outcomes and long-term rates of revision surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsP) who underwent primary standalone BSD versus primary ESS. We also wanted to better understand the post-procedure utilization of major healthcare resources between these groups.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using the TriNetX platform to identify patients with CRSsP undergoing standalone BSD versus primary ESS. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance age and gender in each cohort. The primary outcome was revision ESS rates at 1 and 10 years. Secondary outcomes were rates of healthcare utilization and complications, including orbital, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and epistaxis within 90 days.ResultsAfter matching, each cohort had 2112 patients. At 1 year, the revision ESS rate was 3.5% in the balloon cohort and 3.5% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70-1.35). Extending follow-up to 10 years, revision rates were also not statistically different: 5.8% in the balloon cohort and 6.3% in the ESS cohort (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.19). Patients in the balloon cohort had a lower 90-day risk of inpatient encounters (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.38), CRS-related patient visits (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.71), diagnostic nasal endoscopies (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.65), antibiotic prescriptions (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43-0.66), and corticosteroid prescriptions (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.71).ConclusionNo significant difference was observed in revision ESS rates in CRSsP patients who underwent primary BSD versus ESS after 10 years in this large database study. Findings suggest that in appropriately selected patients, BSD offers a durable response and a favorable value proposition in the management of patients with CRSsP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication committed to expanding knowledge and publishing the best clinical and basic research within the fields of Rhinology & Allergy. Its focus is to publish information which contributes to improved quality of care for patients with nasal and sinus disorders. Its primary readership consists of otolaryngologists, allergists, and plastic surgeons. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials, and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信