Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T14:06:17.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Endoscopic sinus surgery as day-case procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2008

Y Bajaj ,
N Sethi ,
S Carr  and
L C Knight
Y Bajaj*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
N Sethi
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
S Carr
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
L C Knight
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Leeds General Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Y Bajaj, 2 Tall Trees, Leeds LS17 7WA Fax: 01132663305 E-mail: ybajaj@hotmail.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery is the mainstay of surgical treatment for chronic sinusitis. Day-case surgery has the advantage over in-patient surgery of being cost-effective and resource sparing. The objectives of this study were to assess our results for day-case functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Methods:

This was a retrospective case note review of day-case functional endoscopic sinus surgery procedures performed at Leeds General Infirmary from February 2004 to February 2007. We recorded patients' demographic data, operative details, post-operative course and follow-up results.

Results:

A total of 105 day-case functional endoscopic sinus surgery procedures were included in the study. Patients' ages ranged from 16 to 93 years; 44 (41.9 per cent) were female and 61 (58.1 per cent) were male. Of these patients, 39 (37.1 per cent) had chronic sinusitis and the rest (66; 62.8 per cent) had nasal polyposis and sinusitis. Sixty-one patients (58.1 per cent) underwent surgery on the morning operating list, while the rest (44; 41.9 per cent) underwent surgery in the afternoon. Of the 105 patients, 24 (22.8 per cent) had undergone previous nasal surgery. The majority of patients (90/105; 85.7 per cent) were discharged on the same day as surgery. The only complication recorded in this study was bleeding, noted in seven patients (6.7 per cent). At the follow-up appointment, 90/105 (85.7 per cent) patients were satisfied with their post-operative results.

Conclusions:

Day-case endoscopic sinus surgery can be performed safely as a day-case procedure. The most important factors for a successful outcome are correct patient selection, in terms of general health and social circumstances, and a dedicated day-case team.

Keywords

Paranasal SinusesOtorhinolaryngologic Surgical ProceduresEndoscopyAmbulatory Surgical Procedures

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 619 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Benninger, MS, Ferguson, BJ, Hadley, JA. Adult chronic rhinosinusitis: definitions, diagnosis, epidemiology and pathophysiology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:S1–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Ragab, SM, Lund, VJ, Scadding, G. Evaluation of the medical and surgical treatment of chronic sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1541–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Lund, VJ. Evidence based surgery in chronic rhinosinusitis. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 2001;121:5–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 NHS Plan. The NHS Plan – a plan for investment, a plan for reform. Norwich: HSMO, 2000Google Scholar
5 Black, N, Petticrew, M, Hunter, D. Day care surgery: development of a national comparative audit service. Qual Health Care 1993;2:162–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Ruckley, CV, Cuthbertson, C, Fenwick, N, Prescott, RJ, Garraway, WM. Dat case after operations for hernia or varicose veins@a controlled trial. Br J Surg 1978;65(7):456–9Google Scholar
7 Department of Health. Day surgery, making it happen. London: Department of Health, 1991Google Scholar
8 Audit Commission. All in a day's work: an audit of day surgery in England and Wales. London: HMSO, 1992Google Scholar
9 Haworth, EA, Balarajan, R. Day case surgery: does it add or replace inpatient surgery. BMJ 1989;294:133–135Google Scholar
10 Senapati, A, Young, AE. Acceptability of day care surgery. J R Soc Med 1989;82:735–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Hopkins, C, Browne, JP, Slack, R, Lund, V, Topham, J, Reeves, B et al. The national comparative audit of surgery for nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:390–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Goulbourne, IA, Ruckley, CV. Operations for hernia and varicose veins in a day bed unit. BMJ 1979;2:712–714Google Scholar
13 Cooper, JM. Day case cataract surgery in UK and USA: a comparative study. Br J Nurs 1997;6:39–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Audit Commission. Measuring quality: the patient's view of day surgery. London: HMSO, 1991Google Scholar
15 The Audit Commission for England and Wales. A short cut to better services: day surgery in England and Wales. London: HMSO, 1990Google Scholar
16 Dean, M. London perspective. An audit route to more treatment (News and Comment). Lancet 1990;336:1118–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Delvin, HB. The scope of day-case surgery. Br J Hosp Med 1995;54:244–5Google Scholar
18 Buckley, JG, Mitchell, DB, Hickey, SA, Fitzgerald O'Connor, AF. Submucous resection of the nasal septum as an out-patient procedure. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:544–6Google Scholar
19 Johnson, CD, Jarrett, PEM. Admission to hospital after day case surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990;72:225–8Google Scholar
20 Dalziel, K, Stein, K, Round, A, Garside, R, Royle, P. Systematic review of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyps. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1–159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Pineault, R, Constandriopoulos, AP, Valios, M, Bastion, ML, Lance, JM. Randomized clinical trial of one day surgery: patient satisfaction, clinical outcome and costs. Med Care 1985;23:171–82Google Scholar