Surgical management of vasomotor rhinitis: A systematic review

Ashleigh Halderman, Raj Sindwani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is one of the most prevalent forms of nonallergic rhinitis. In the past, when maximal medical therapy failed, surgical options were limited. Vidian neurectomy (VN) was one option; however, it was fraught with complications and limited success. The advent of endoscopic sinus surgery revitalized interest in surgical procedures for VMR. This study was designed to review the available literature and assess the safety and efficacy of surgery on the vidian and posterior nasal nerves for treatment of VMR and when possible, compare the different approaches to one another in regard to safety and efficacy. Methods: A systematic review was performed of English language articles using Ovid and PubMed. Search terms included "endoscopic vidian neurectomy," "vidian neurectomy," "endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy" (EPNN), and "posterior nasal neurectomy." Only clinical trials performed on humans with safety and or efficacy data were included. Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields was performed. Safety defined by complication rates and efficacy defined as objective improvement on outcomes scores along with the overall length of benefit were the primary measures of treatment effect. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed. Results: In comparison with open VN, endoscopic techniques were not associated with any long-term sequelae. Rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction were shown to improve after endoscopic VN (EVN) and the benefits were maintained for several years after surgery. Conclusion: EVN is well tolerated, safe, and effective in a majority of patients. Overall, the literature has shown that the endoscopic approach is associated with less morbidity than the traditional transantral approach. Currently, no literature exists on the effect of EPNN in patients with vasomotor rhinitis and further study is needed to elucidate the efficacy of this procedure in this subset of patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)128-134
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Rhinology and Allergy
Volume29
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Vasomotor Rhinitis
Nose
Safety
Nasal Obstruction
Rhinitis
PubMed
Meta-Analysis
Language
Therapeutics
Clinical Trials
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Surgical management of vasomotor rhinitis : A systematic review. / Halderman, Ashleigh; Sindwani, Raj.

In: American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy, Vol. 29, No. 2, 01.03.2015, p. 128-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dfd6ddc680d64320828d0aaac94d4fb5,
title = "Surgical management of vasomotor rhinitis: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is one of the most prevalent forms of nonallergic rhinitis. In the past, when maximal medical therapy failed, surgical options were limited. Vidian neurectomy (VN) was one option; however, it was fraught with complications and limited success. The advent of endoscopic sinus surgery revitalized interest in surgical procedures for VMR. This study was designed to review the available literature and assess the safety and efficacy of surgery on the vidian and posterior nasal nerves for treatment of VMR and when possible, compare the different approaches to one another in regard to safety and efficacy. Methods: A systematic review was performed of English language articles using Ovid and PubMed. Search terms included {"}endoscopic vidian neurectomy,{"} {"}vidian neurectomy,{"} {"}endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy{"} (EPNN), and {"}posterior nasal neurectomy.{"} Only clinical trials performed on humans with safety and or efficacy data were included. Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields was performed. Safety defined by complication rates and efficacy defined as objective improvement on outcomes scores along with the overall length of benefit were the primary measures of treatment effect. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed. Results: In comparison with open VN, endoscopic techniques were not associated with any long-term sequelae. Rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction were shown to improve after endoscopic VN (EVN) and the benefits were maintained for several years after surgery. Conclusion: EVN is well tolerated, safe, and effective in a majority of patients. Overall, the literature has shown that the endoscopic approach is associated with less morbidity than the traditional transantral approach. Currently, no literature exists on the effect of EPNN in patients with vasomotor rhinitis and further study is needed to elucidate the efficacy of this procedure in this subset of patients.",
author = "Ashleigh Halderman and Raj Sindwani",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4141",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "128--134",
journal = "American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy",
issn = "1945-8924",
publisher = "OceanSide Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical management of vasomotor rhinitis

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Halderman, Ashleigh

AU - Sindwani, Raj

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Background: Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is one of the most prevalent forms of nonallergic rhinitis. In the past, when maximal medical therapy failed, surgical options were limited. Vidian neurectomy (VN) was one option; however, it was fraught with complications and limited success. The advent of endoscopic sinus surgery revitalized interest in surgical procedures for VMR. This study was designed to review the available literature and assess the safety and efficacy of surgery on the vidian and posterior nasal nerves for treatment of VMR and when possible, compare the different approaches to one another in regard to safety and efficacy. Methods: A systematic review was performed of English language articles using Ovid and PubMed. Search terms included "endoscopic vidian neurectomy," "vidian neurectomy," "endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy" (EPNN), and "posterior nasal neurectomy." Only clinical trials performed on humans with safety and or efficacy data were included. Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields was performed. Safety defined by complication rates and efficacy defined as objective improvement on outcomes scores along with the overall length of benefit were the primary measures of treatment effect. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed. Results: In comparison with open VN, endoscopic techniques were not associated with any long-term sequelae. Rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction were shown to improve after endoscopic VN (EVN) and the benefits were maintained for several years after surgery. Conclusion: EVN is well tolerated, safe, and effective in a majority of patients. Overall, the literature has shown that the endoscopic approach is associated with less morbidity than the traditional transantral approach. Currently, no literature exists on the effect of EPNN in patients with vasomotor rhinitis and further study is needed to elucidate the efficacy of this procedure in this subset of patients.

AB - Background: Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is one of the most prevalent forms of nonallergic rhinitis. In the past, when maximal medical therapy failed, surgical options were limited. Vidian neurectomy (VN) was one option; however, it was fraught with complications and limited success. The advent of endoscopic sinus surgery revitalized interest in surgical procedures for VMR. This study was designed to review the available literature and assess the safety and efficacy of surgery on the vidian and posterior nasal nerves for treatment of VMR and when possible, compare the different approaches to one another in regard to safety and efficacy. Methods: A systematic review was performed of English language articles using Ovid and PubMed. Search terms included "endoscopic vidian neurectomy," "vidian neurectomy," "endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy" (EPNN), and "posterior nasal neurectomy." Only clinical trials performed on humans with safety and or efficacy data were included. Independent extraction of articles by two authors using predefined data fields was performed. Safety defined by complication rates and efficacy defined as objective improvement on outcomes scores along with the overall length of benefit were the primary measures of treatment effect. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed. Results: In comparison with open VN, endoscopic techniques were not associated with any long-term sequelae. Rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction were shown to improve after endoscopic VN (EVN) and the benefits were maintained for several years after surgery. Conclusion: EVN is well tolerated, safe, and effective in a majority of patients. Overall, the literature has shown that the endoscopic approach is associated with less morbidity than the traditional transantral approach. Currently, no literature exists on the effect of EPNN in patients with vasomotor rhinitis and further study is needed to elucidate the efficacy of this procedure in this subset of patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925821479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925821479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4141

DO - 10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4141

M3 - Article

C2 - 25785754

AN - SCOPUS:84925821479

VL - 29

SP - 128

EP - 134

JO - American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy

JF - American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy

SN - 1945-8924

IS - 2

ER -