xRead - Nasal Obstruction (September 2024) Full Articles

20426984, 2021, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22741 by Stanford University, Wiley Online Library on [01/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

584

International consensus statement on rhinosinusitis

(Continues)

procedure, and efficacy of Draf III as a salvage procedure. Choby 2023 2018 4 Case-series Description of “Cross-court Draf IIb” procedure, with case presentations. Long term patent frontal sinusotomy. Description of variation to the Draf procedures.

21% restenosis after Draf III procedures, mainly due to polyp recurrence.

Intraoperative pus present at initial surgery, more than 5

previous sinus operations, or

AERD increased risk of failure. Revision Draf III is safe and well-tolerated.

suggests long lasting quality of improvement with Draf IIa

Draf III is associated with more postoperative clinic visits, debridements, antibiotic therapy, and extranasal

symptoms than Draf IIa in the first 8 weeks after the procedures. Morrissey 1824 2016 4 Case-series 213 patients who

Study Year LOE Study Design Study Groups Clinical Endpoint Conclusions

While limited data, evidence

outcomes, then rate and indications of revision surgeries. Review of outcomes after the revision Draf III.

Efficacy, safety and long term post-operative outcome review.

Evaluate surgical and QoL outcomes.

Review of the Draf III

underwent a Draf III

procedure by a single surgeon 2001-2013.

Review of evidence for Draf IIa and III procedures.

Draf IIa, and 19 patients undergoing Draf III procedures.

Jafari 2019 2017 4 Case-control study. 19 patients undergoing

DeConde 2014 2016 3 Systematic review of Level 3-5 evidence

TABLE XII-17 (Continued)