Selection of Surgical Technique and Treatment Outcome of Revision Septoplasty.
10.3342/kjorl-hns.2017.00241
- Author:
Min Joo KIM
1
;
Yong Ju JANG
Author Information
1. Department of Otolaryngology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jangyj@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Caudal;
Deviation;
Post-operative;
Revision;
Septoplasty
- MeSH:
Cartilage;
Demography;
Humans;
Interviews as Topic;
Medical Records;
Methods;
Nasal Obstruction;
Patient Satisfaction;
Postoperative Complications;
Retrospective Studies;
Suture Techniques;
Sutures;
Transplants;
Treatment Outcome*
- From:Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2017;60(12):640-645
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to review our experience with patients undergoing revision septoplasty and to evaluate the causes of persistent nasal obstruction and treatment outcomes of revision septoplasty. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: The medical records of 58 patients (53 men) who underwent revision septoplasty by the author of this study between 2006 and 2012 at our institute were retrospectively reviewed. Data on demographics, symptoms, anatomic site of deviation, surgical techniques performed, and postoperative complications were collected. Patient satisfaction scores were graded with a grading scale from 1 (excellent) to 4 (poor). RESULTS: All of the patients visited our hospital for persistent nasal obstruction after prior septoplasty. Forty-seven patients (81%) showed caudal septal deviation and 11 (19%) showed some other forms of septal deviation. Twenty-one cases (36.2%) were treated with the batten graft with cutting and suture technique, 20 (34.5%) with a batten graft alone, 10 (17.3%) with resection of remnant deviated septal bone and cartilage, 4 (6.8%) with the cutting and suture technique, 2 (3.5%) with a relocation suture, and 1 (1.7%) with a spreader graft. The median patient satisfaction score for 31 patients who answered the telephone interview was 2.06±0.93. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of patients who undergo revision septoplasty have remnant or recurrent caudal septal deviation that was not properly corrected in previous surgery. We recommend the batten grafting and the cutting and suture technique for the correction of caudal septal deviation in revision septoplasty.
