In‐Office Balloon Dilation of the Failed Frontal Sinusotomy

Eloy, Jean Anderson; Friedel, Mark E.; Eloy, Jean Daniel; Govindaraj, Satish; Folbe, Adam J.

doi:10.1177/0194599811425885

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Revision rates were within the range of prior published results from endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) case series and single‐center retrospective analyses . Results from several subsequent studies demonstrated balloon dilation can be safely and comfortably performed in a clinic setting under local anesthesia with a high rate of intraoperative treatment success and similar trends in postoperative outcomes …”

supporting

confidence: 59%

Safety and outcomes following hybrid balloon and balloon‐only procedures using a multifunction, multisinus balloon dilation tool

Brodner

Nachlas²,

Mock³

et al. 2013

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 59%

Safety and outcomes following hybrid balloon and balloon‐only procedures using a multifunction, multisinus balloon dilation tool

Brodner

Nachlas²,

Mock³

et al. 2013

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, our data do not capture in‐office BCD, as our dataset only includes procedures in ambulatory surgery centers. Prior studies have shown that BCD technology can be safely used in the office setting under local anesthesia for patients with or without a prior history of ESS, with high patient satisfaction and sustained symptom improvement . In‐office BCD may prove to be cost‐effective and time‐efficient, but further studies are necessary to compare the costs of in‐office BCD to resource utilization of surgical management in the operating room.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operative utilization of balloon versus traditional endoscopic sinus surgery

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To study the utilization of balloon catheter dilation(BCD) compared to traditional endoscopic surgery(ESS). Methods Cases identified by CPT codes as BCD(2,717) or traditional ESS(31,059) were extracted from the State Ambulatory Surgery Databases 2011 for California, Florida, Maryland and New York. Patient demographicss, surgical center and surgeon volume, mean charge and OR time were compared. Results 33,776 patients underwent sinus surgery in the included states in 2011. 4.6% of maxillary, 5.6% of sphenoid and 13.9% of frontal procedures were performed using BCD. Adjusted analyses found increased use of BCD in patients with chronic diseases(p<0.001). Patients who had a limited sinus surgery were less likely to have BCD compared to patients who had all 4 sinuses instrumented(p<0.001). Surgeons who performed a medium[odds ratio 1.38(1.14–1.65)] or high[odds ratio 1.71(1.42–2.07)] volume of ESS were more likely to use BCD compared to those who performed a low volume(p <0.001), however among surgeons who utilized BCD there was minimal relationship between the percentage of surgeries performed with BCD and the surgeon's total number of cases(R squared=0.055). Compared to traditional ESS, the median charges for maxillary/ethmoid procedures(Mini-ESS) involving BCD were approximately $4,500(p<0.001) and maxillary/ethmoid/sphenoid/frontal procedures(Pan-ESS) were approximately $2,950(p=0.003) greater, while the median OR time involving BCD was 8 minutes less for Mini-ESS procedures(p=0.01) but not statistically different for Pan-ESS procedures(p=0.58). Conclusions In the study sample, balloon technology was used in 8.0% of ESS cases in 2011. Procedures using BCD were on average more expensive compared to traditional ESS procedures, with minimal decrease in OR time. Level of Evidence 2c

show abstract

“…Patients with frontal and sphenoid disease were excluded from the study. Eloy et al reported retrospectively on 5 patients who had office‐based dilation of a previously operated and stenosed frontal sinusotomy using transnasal balloon dilation instrumentation. All 5 patients were reported to be “asymptomatic” at a mean follow‐up of 5 months with patent drainage pathway.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 5 patients were reported to be “asymptomatic” at a mean follow‐up of 5 months with patent drainage pathway. Although Eloy et al's work is a promising preliminary report, the study is limited by the small sample and the lack of a validated QOL instrument upon which to base patient symptom outcomes. Luong et al also provides a limited retrospective report of 6 patients undergoing office‐based dilation for postoperative frontal sinus ostium stenosis using either a lacrimal dilation catheter or a sinus dilation catheter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%