Endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty for nasal septum deviation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract

Background: Although conventional septoplasty is widely used to treat nasal septum deviation, it increases morbidity due to poor visualization, poor illumination, the need for nasal packing, and difficulty in evaluating of the exact pathology. These drawbacks are also encountered in endoscopic septoplasty. Our study aimed to compare the treatment and complication outcomes of conventional and endoscopic septoplasty. Methods: The authors searched five electronic databases for relevant clinical trials. The records were screened for eligibility. Data were extracted from the included studies. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% CIs using RevMan ver.5.4. Results: Our study included 13 randomized clinical trials with 735 patients. Our analysis revealed that endoscopic septoplasty was significantly (P<0.05) superior to conventional septoplasty for postoperative nasal obstruction relief, intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage, and mucosal adhesion and synechiae across both long-term and short-term follow-ups. The following pooled RR values were found in short-term follow-up periods: [RR=1.20, 95% CI:=(1.09,1.32)]; [RR=0.27, 95% CI=(0.14,0.54)]; and [RR=0.16, 95% CI=(0.08,0.32)], respectively. Regarding persistent septal deviation and septal tear, endoscopic septoplasty had the upper hand only in short-term follow-up periods [RR=0.30, 95% CI=(0.17,0.53)] and [RR=0.26, 95% CI=(0.15,0.46)], respectively. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that endoscopic septoplasty was significantly superior to conventional septoplasty in postoperative nasal obstruction relief rate and reducing the risk of intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage, mucosal adhesion and synechiae, persistent septal deviation, septal tear, and surgery duration.