الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract The nasal septum is essential for nasal stability because it supports the nasal tip, dorsum, and middle nasal third. When the nose is significantly deformed or deviated, it can cause nasal obstruction, a proclivity for chronic or recurring sinusitis, and, less commonly, contact point headaches. When septal deviation causes symptoms, surgical intervention is frequently considered. The traditional ”conventional” approach and the endoscopic septoplasty technique are the two main surgical approaches used to treat a deviated nasal septum. The traditional method entails addressing the septum through direct visualization with headlight illumination. Endoscopic techniques, on the other hand, use a rigid endoscope to directly visualize the septum, allowing for correction of any deformities. Both techniques are commonly used to treat nasal septal deviations; however, there is ongoing debate about which approach results in better outcomes and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to compare between endoscopic and conventional septoplasty through a meta-analysis study. In this meta-analysis we enrolled 22 articles fulfilled inclusion criteria as having symptomatic deviated nasal septum (headache, nasal obstruction, hyposmia and epistaxis) and refractory to medical treatment that diagnosed clinically, radiological and endoscopically having deviated nasal septum or spur. Our main finding was that the endoscopic septoplasty technique seemed to offer certain advantages, with fewer overall complications compared with the traditional open technique. |