Efficacy of the posterior nasal nerve resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization on difficult-to-treat rhinosinusitis: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

A retrospective analysis was performed to explore the clinical effect of the Posterior Nasal Nerve (PNN) resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization on Difficult-to-Treat Rhinosinusitis (DTRS).

METHODS

A total of 120 DTRS patients were selected and divided into a control group (n = 60) and a study group (n = 60) according to different treatments. The control group patients were treated via PNN resection, followed by normal saline transnasal nebulization; the study group patients were given PNN resection and then treated with budesonide suspension transnasal nebulization. Subsequently, the comparison was performed between the two groups in terms of (1) Clinical baseline characteristics; (2) Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 scores before treatment and after 3-months, 6-months and 12-months of treatment; (3) Lund-MacKay scores before treatment and after 10, 30, 90, and 180 days of treatment; (4) Incidence of adverse reactions during treatment.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in SNOT-22 or Lund-Kennedy scores between the two groups before treatment (p > 0.05). After treatment, the SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores of the control and the study groups were decreased, and compared with the control group, the SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores in the study group improved more significantly (p < 0.05). In addition, the study group and the control group presented with 1 and 4 cases of nasal adhesion, 2 and 3 cases of epistaxis, 1 and 4 cases of sinus orifice obstruction, 1 and 3 cases of lacrimal duct injuries, respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (8.3% vs. 23.3%) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PNN resection combined with hormone transnasal nebulization treatment can improve the symptoms and quality of life of DTRS patients, with good clinical efficacy but few adverse reactions. Therefore, such combination treatment deserves a promotion and application clinically.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.