Long-term effectiveness, safety, and quality of life outcomes following endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy with submucosal turbinectomy for the treatment of intractable severe chronic rhinitis

Posterior nasal neurectomy for intractable rhinitis: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Rhinitis affects up to 40% of the population worldwide and can significantly reduce quality of life. Some patients remain symptomatic despite maximal medical therapy. In refractory cases, posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN-the endoscopic division of the intranasal nerve branches containing postganglionic parasympathetic fibres) is postulated to reduce symptom burden.

OBJECTIVES OF REVIEW

To establish whether PNN is effective and safe in the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis.

TYPE OF REVIEW

Systematic review.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane. The inclusion criteria were: studies published in English, studies where PNN was performed either with or without additional procedures, and where measures of objective/subjective outcomes and/or complications were reported. Extracted data included study type, sample size, surgical technique, study population characteristics, follow-up period, outcome measures, complications of surgery, and symptom outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 23 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria studying in total 2282 patients. Sample size ranged from 8 to 1056. There were 3 randomised controlled trials, 3 case-control studies, and the remaining 17 were case series using both objective and subjective outcome measures. All but one study found improved patient-reported outcomes following PNN. Complications were reported in 14 studies-epistaxis was the most common complication and was observed in 30 patients (1.5% of subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

PNN had a low rate of complications. Although most studies reported significant symptomatic improvement, their heterogeneity, level of evidence, study design, and/or quality was not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of the procedure. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to clarify its role in the management of difficult-to-treat rhinitis.

Efficacy of various surgical methods in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We often use surgery to treat allergic rhinitis (AR) patients who have failed drug treatment, but there is currently no clear gold standard for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Using network meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of AR.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, Wan Fang Data, and CNKI databases were searched to collect clinical randomized controlled trials of AR with different surgical methods that met the inclusion criteria. After two investigators independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, R software was used to evaluate inconsistency using the node splitting method, and Stata15.1 was used to estimate the ranking probability of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 47 randomized control studies involving 17 surgical schemes and 4144 participants were included. The results showed that after excluding surgical methods that did not form a closed loop, in AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, surgical efficiency and symptom score ranked the same, which were posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN), Vidian neurectomy (VN), anterior ethmoid neurectomy (AEN), nasal septal reconstruction (NSR), and bilateral inferior turbinoplasty (BIT). In AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, the effective rate (OR = 5.06; 95% CI = 2.75-9.32) and symptom and sign scores (MD = -3.80; 95% CI = -6.50-1.09) of PNN + FESS (functional endoscopic sinusitis surgery) were higher than FESS, and there was a significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that PNN is the best single operation for patients with AR and without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, and the combination of multiple procedures may be better than a single operation. FESS + PNN is more effectual in AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Efficacy of Vidian Neurectomy and Posterior Nasal Neurectomy in the Management of Nonallergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is characterized by rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and sneezing, in the absence of systemic sensitization to allergens. For cases refractory to medical therapy and conservative surgical interventions, more targeted procedures, such as endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN), including surgical (SPNN) and cryoablative (CPNN) methods, may reduce symptoms of NAR.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, side effect profile, and complication rate between EVN and PNN for NAR.

METHODS

A systematic review of primary articles that reported original patient data for either EVN or PNN was conducted using Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases since 2006, according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome of the study was an improvement in NAR symptom severity. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative side effects or complications.

RESULTS

In total, 58 articles met the search criteria with a total of 9 studies (including 2 RCTs) eligible for inclusion. There was a pooled sample of 229 NAR patients that underwent EVN (n = 65; 28.4%), SPNN (n = 50; 21.8%), or CPNN (n = 114; 49.8%). For all 3 techniques, there was a statistically significant improvement in nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and obstruction along with quality of life. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis and direct comparison of efficacy. The pooled incidence of postoperative complications for EVN (n = 65), SPNN (n = 50), and CPNN (n = 70) was 30.8% versus 0% versus 2.9% for dry eye, 16.9% versus 0% versus 1.4% for palatal/cheek numbness, and 0% versus 6% versus 4.3% for bleeding.

CONCLUSION

EVN, SPNN, and CPNN are similarly efficacious for patients with NAR refractory to medical management. SPNN and CPNN are associated with lower rates of complications (dry eye and palatal/cheek numbness) compared with EVN.

The anatomy of the foramina and efferent nerve fibers from the pterygopalatine ganglion in posterolateral nasal wall

Background

The advance of endoscopic surgery has enabled selective section of the postganglionic nerve branches from pterygopalatine ganglion (PPG) as a modification of the vidian neurectomy. Recent microanatomic studies have suggested that the nasal mucosa is also innervated by multiple efferent rami associated with the sphenopalatine artery (SPA) in the procedure “posterior nasal neurectomy.” This anatomic cadaveric study aims to identify all postganglionic nerve fibers in the lateral nasal wall which should inform future surgical procedures aimed at interrupting these nerve fibers.

Methods

Two cadaver heads, with a total of three individual sides, were dissected. All neurovascular structures penetrating the vertical plate of palatine bone were carefully identified following meticulous removal of the overlying mucosa layers. The efferent nerve fibers were identified and dissected back to their origin—the PPG or greater palatine nerve.

Results

Several foramina with efferent PPG nerves were identified on the vertical plate of the palatine bone and medial pterygoid plate. The superior, middle, and inferior turbinates (IT) were innervated by efferent nerves from the PPG via the anterior region of the SPA. The IT was innervated from nerves originating from behind the SPA through bony foramina. The lateral wall of inferior meatus was innervated by efferent nerves that originated from greater palatine nerve and pharyngeal nerve.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the anatomical positions of the postganglionic nerves that innervate the lateral nasal wall. These nerves are located anterior to the SPA as well as posterior to the SPA, where they penetrate the palatine bone.

Level of evidence: NA.