Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPhilpott, C
dc.contributor.authorHopkins, C
dc.contributor.authorErskine, S
dc.contributor.authorKumar, N
dc.contributor.authorRobertson, A
dc.contributor.authorFarboud, A
dc.contributor.authorAhmed, S
dc.contributor.authorAnari, S
dc.contributor.authorCathcart, R
dc.contributor.authorKhalil, Hisham
dc.contributor.authorJervis, P
dc.contributor.authorCarrie, S
dc.contributor.authorKara, N
dc.contributor.authorPrinsley, P
dc.contributor.authorAlmeyda, R
dc.contributor.authorMansell, N
dc.contributor.authorSunkaraneni, S
dc.contributor.authorSalam, M
dc.contributor.authorRay, J
dc.contributor.authorPanesaar, J
dc.contributor.authorHobson, J
dc.contributor.authorClark, A
dc.contributor.authorMorris, S
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-22T00:48:04Z
dc.date.available2018-04-22T00:48:04Z
dc.date.issued2015-04-29
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.otherARTN e006680
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11315
dc.description.abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the surgical revision rate in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in the UK CRS Epidemiology Study (CRES). Previous evidence from National Sinonasal Audit showed that 1459 patients with CRS demonstrated a surgical revision rate 19.1% at 5 years, with highest rates seen in those with polyps (20.6%). SETTING: Thirty secondary care centres around the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 221 controls and 1249 patients with CRS were recruited to the study including those with polyps (CRSwNPs), without polyps (CRSsNPs) and with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). INTERVENTIONS: Self-administered questionnaire. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The need for previous sinonasal surgery. RESULTS: A total of 651 patients with CRSwNPs, 553 with CRSsNPs and 45 with AFRS were included. A total of 396 (57%) patients with CRSwNPs/AFRS reported having undergone previous endoscopic nasal polypectomy (ENP), of which 182 of the 396 (46%) reported having received more than one operation. The mean number of previous surgeries per patient in the revision group was 3.3 (range 2-30) and a mean duration of time of 10 years since the last procedure. The average length of time since their first operation up to inclusion in the study was 15.5 years (range 0-74). Only 27.9% of all patients reporting a prior ENP had received concurrent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS; n=102). For comparison, surgical rates in patients with CRSsNPs were significantly lower; 13% of cases specifically reported ESS, and of those only 30% reported multiple procedures (χ(2) p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that there is a high burden of both primary and revision surgery in patients with CRS, worst in those with AFRS and least in those with CRSsNPs. The burden of revision surgery appears unchanged in the decade since the Sinonasal Audit.

dc.format.extente006680-e006680
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBMJ
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectCase-Control Studies
dc.subjectChronic Disease
dc.subjectCross-Sectional Studies
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectNasal Polyps
dc.subjectOtorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures
dc.subjectReoperation
dc.subjectRhinitis
dc.subjectSinusitis
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnaires
dc.subjectTertiary Care Centers
dc.subjectUnited Kingdom
dc.subjectYoung Adult
dc.titleThe burden of revision sinonasal surgery in the UK--data from the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Epidemiology Study (CRES): a cross-sectional study
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000354705000027&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue4
plymouth.volume5
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMJ Open
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006680
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006680
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV