Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the efficacy and safety of middle turbinate resection (MTR) and preservation (MTP) during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).</p> Methods <p>We evaluated postoperative outcomes, including quality of life, postoperative safety, and postoperative complications. Both fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, as well as sensitivity and subgroup analyses, were conducted.</p> Results <p>Twenty-five studies including 4,314 cases were analyzed. For quality-of-life outcomes, no significant differences were found between MTR and MTP in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22: MD = –4.20; 95% CI: –10.11 to 1.71; p = 0.16), olfactory improvement (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.93; p = 0.11), or Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (LKES: MD = –0.53; 95% CI: –1.18 to 0.12; p = 0.11). For postoperative complications, MTR showed lower risks of adhesion (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.34; p &lt; 0.001), sinus ostium restenosis (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.72; p = 0.005), and lateralization (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p &lt; 0.001), but higher risk of bleeding (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.59; p = 0.007).</p> Conclusion <p>MTR yields comparable quality-of-life outcomes to MTP while lowering adhesion, sinus ostium restenosis, and lateralization, but increases bleeding risk. Careful risk–benefit assessment is warranted to support informed surgical decision-making.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Middle turbinate preservation versus resection during endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月29日

查看全文
  • ShuYi Huang,
  • XiFu Wu,
  • ZiZhen Huang,
  • GeHua Zhang

摘要

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of middle turbinate resection (MTR) and preservation (MTP) during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

Methods

We evaluated postoperative outcomes, including quality of life, postoperative safety, and postoperative complications. Both fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, as well as sensitivity and subgroup analyses, were conducted.

Results

Twenty-five studies including 4,314 cases were analyzed. For quality-of-life outcomes, no significant differences were found between MTR and MTP in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22: MD = –4.20; 95% CI: –10.11 to 1.71; p = 0.16), olfactory improvement (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.93; p = 0.11), or Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (LKES: MD = –0.53; 95% CI: –1.18 to 0.12; p = 0.11). For postoperative complications, MTR showed lower risks of adhesion (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.34; p < 0.001), sinus ostium restenosis (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.72; p = 0.005), and lateralization (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p < 0.001), but higher risk of bleeding (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.59; p = 0.007).

Conclusion

MTR yields comparable quality-of-life outcomes to MTP while lowering adhesion, sinus ostium restenosis, and lateralization, but increases bleeding risk. Careful risk–benefit assessment is warranted to support informed surgical decision-making.