The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2010
Do comorbidities influence objective and subjective recovery rates of nasal polyposis?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akarcay Mustafa, Ekici Nur, Miman Murat C, Firat Yezdan, Bayindir Tuba, Selimoglu Erol
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical and laboratory outcomes both objectively and subjectively in nasal polyposis patients with or without comorbidity (CoM; asthma and allergy).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three nasal polyposis patients (13 women and 20 men) were included into the study. Their mean age was 39.23 +/- 9.13 years. CoM(+) and CoM(-) nasal polyposis patients were compared with each other. Evaluations contained endoscopic nasal examination, acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, visual analog scale score of nasal blockage, olfactory function score, respiratory function test, skin prick tests, and paranasal sinus computed tomography.
RESULTS: Recovery was statistically significant in all observed evaluations for endoscopic and radiologic staging, nasal obstruction, and sense of smell compared with the first evaluation in all patients regardless of the subgroups. Although objective measurements of respiratory functions did not show any change, clinical improvement was detected in CoM(+) patients with a decrease of need to their antiasthmatic medical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of CoM(+) patients led to no statistical difference when compared with CoM(-) subgroup. When applying predefined nasal polyposis treatment protocol, the polyp patients with CoMs do not need close follow-up compared to the patients without CoMs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three nasal polyposis patients (13 women and 20 men) were included into the study. Their mean age was 39.23 +/- 9.13 years. CoM(+) and CoM(-) nasal polyposis patients were compared with each other. Evaluations contained endoscopic nasal examination, acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, visual analog scale score of nasal blockage, olfactory function score, respiratory function test, skin prick tests, and paranasal sinus computed tomography.
RESULTS: Recovery was statistically significant in all observed evaluations for endoscopic and radiologic staging, nasal obstruction, and sense of smell compared with the first evaluation in all patients regardless of the subgroups. Although objective measurements of respiratory functions did not show any change, clinical improvement was detected in CoM(+) patients with a decrease of need to their antiasthmatic medical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of CoM(+) patients led to no statistical difference when compared with CoM(-) subgroup. When applying predefined nasal polyposis treatment protocol, the polyp patients with CoMs do not need close follow-up compared to the patients without CoMs.