Abstract

Comparing endoscopic and traditional septoplasty in terms of operating time, functional efficacy, and perioperative morbidity was the goal of this study. Using the PubMed database, Google, and Google Scholar, a systematic assessment of the scientific literature was conducted. Randomized prospective trials comparing endoscopic and traditional septoplasty were sought after. Operating time was the major goal, while the secondary endpoints were hospital stay, functional outcome, intra- and postoperative complications, and postoperative discomfort. The comparison of endoscopic and traditional septoplasty was conducted in twenty-nine studies published between 1991 and 2012, five of which were prospective randomized trials. With endoscopic surgery, there was less mucosal damage (p < 0.01), less synechia (p < 0.01), less residual deformity (p < 0.05), and less pain following surgery. The operating duration was also shorter (p < 0.001). Thus, endoscopic septoplasty resulted in a shorter surgical duration and fewer postoperative problems; nonetheless, the functional outcome remained identical to that of conventional septoplasty.

Key words: Endoscopic septoplasty, conventional septoplasty, comparison, systemic assessment, review