Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of submucosal turbinoplasty in refractory obstructive rhinitis: a prospective comparative trial

Maniaci A, Lechien JR, La Mantia I, Calvo-Henriquez C, Iannella G, Locatello LG, Saibene AM, Leigh SJ et al.

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022

8 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Refractory inferior turbinate hypertrophy requires a surgical approach to address symptomatic complaints. Submucosal approaches demonstrated their efficacy in restoring respiratory function and respecting the nasal mucosa. Microdebrider-assisted turbinoplasty (MAT) tools effectively reduces the soft tissue, exploiting a very different principle from the kinetic energy of radiofrequency. Thus, we aimed to compare the microdebrider-assisted turbinoplasty and the quantum molecular resonance (QMR) to assess patients' perspectives and respiratory outcomes.

METHODS: Subjects with persistent bilateral nasal blockage due to inferior turbinates hypertrophy were prospectively recruited from the University Medical Center. We randomly assigned the patients to each treatment and performed symptom evaluation via the visual analog score and endoscopic assessment at baseline and 30-, 90-, and 180-day post-treatment.

RESULTS: Seventy participants completed the evaluations, 35 in MAT and 35 in the QMR group. Nasal complaints were significantly reduced after 1 month using both methods. Although the MAT group reported higher postoperative bleeding and edema than QMR group, similar significant reductions were seen for turbinate size at long-term follow-up. Conversely, the MAT group reported greater VAS outcomes than QMR from the first postoperative month. In addition, MAT showed a longer operating time, although this difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free