Printer Friendly

A prospective study of clinical profile of chronic rhinosinusitis in a tertiary care centre.

BACKGROUND

Definition and Classifications

The term rhinosinusitis refers to a group of disorders characterised by inflammation of mucosa of the nose and paranasal sinuses. As the nose is invariably involved with paranasal sinuses and the mucosa of nose and paranasal sinuses lays in continuity the term rhinosinusitis is a more preferred term. (1) This disease has got diverse symptomatology and has got a negative impact on quality of life. To tackle the difficult issues related to defining, staging and research of rhinosinusitis, the American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery convened a multidisciplinary in August 1996. (2) As a result of it the article "Adult Rhinosinusitis Defined" has emerged in 1997 and was endorsed by the American Academy of Otolaryngologic Allergy and American Rhinologic Society (AAO-HNS) and later was modified by contributions of Lanza and Kennedy. (3) Acute rhinosinusitis is typically subdivided into Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis (ABRS) or Acute Viral Rhinosinusitis (AVRS). (4) Acute viral rhinosinusitis is usually self-limited, whereas bacterial rhinosinusitis presents with most of the symptoms they became the point of interest. (5) Rhinosinusitis can present in any age group without any gender predisposition. A study conducted by Wayne D Hsueh et al (6) on identifying clinical symptoms on improving the symptomatic diagnosis of CRS showed no significant differences between CRS and non-CRS patients in terms of age, sex and race. There is lack of evidence whether the male and female patients with rhinosinusitis were different and whether they should be treated differently. So a focused research in this area is warranted. (7) It affects between 5 to 15% of population according to Western literature. (8)

Fungal Hypothesis (9)

The fungal hypothesis proposes that patients with CRS mount an eosinophilic response to fungi with initial evidence showing some degree of fungi and eosinophilic mucin in all patients with CRS. The intranasal fungi in a patient with CRS would probably exacerbate the disease process through protease effects on nasal epithelial cells as well as activated eosinophils and lymphocytes present in the nose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a Prospective study conducted between April 2014 and March 2015 in the ENT OPD of Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram; 314 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis attending the Outpatient Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram were included. All patients attending the Outpatient Department were studied.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Chronic rhinosinusitis patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria.

2. Patients in the age group of 18-70 years.

3. Both males and females.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Patients less than 18 years and more than 70 years.

2. Those not willing to participate in the study.

3. Patients who underwent previous nasal surgery.

Data Collection

Semi-structured questionnaire regarding detailed history, duration and severity of symptoms are collected from the patients who attended the Outpatient Department of Otorhinolaryngology. Patients were examined in detail which included anterior rhinoscopy and diagnostic nasal endoscopy. Patients were given medical management with antibiotics, topical steroids, decongestants and nasal douche for 3 weeks and kept under followup. Patients were continued on topical steroids for 3 months, following which patients were re-examined. Computed tomography of nose and paranasal sinuses (Axial, coronal and sagittal view) was taken for patients without symptomatic improvement. They were taken up for Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. Per-operative findings were recorded. Allergic mucin noted during surgery was sent for microbiology, fungal culture and sensitivity and fungal strain identified and recorded. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to elicit demographic data, anterior rhinoscopy and diagnostic nasal endoscopy. Wherever necessary computed tomography of nose and paranasal sinuses was done. Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery was done in patients with correct indications. Swabs and materials from the surgical site were sent to Microbiology Department for fungal strain identification and culture.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data is expressed in percentage and proportion. Quantitative data is expressed in mean and standard deviation. Association is measured by Chi square test. Data entered in Microsoft Excel and analysed using SPSS.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Among the total number of 314 patients' data collected 164 were females (52%) and 150 were males (48%) (Table 1).

Among 314 patients in the study, the most common age group was 31-40 years (23%)). Others were 41-50 years (22%), 21-30 years (19%), 51-60 years (17%), 10-20 years (11%) and 61-70 years (8% >). Mean age group of sample was found to be 40 years with standard deviation of 14.2 (Table 2),

Among the 314 patients observed, the average period for which the patients suffered from chronic rhinosinusitis was 3.7 years. Duration varied from 4 months to 40 years (Table 3),

Among the 314 patients, majority of patients (79% >) had symptoms for 1-5 years. Among the 314 patients, it was found that the most common symptom was headache (84% >) followed by nasal discharge (59%), nasal block (58% >) and facial congestion (57% >). Other results and analysis symptoms were facial pain, halitosis, anosmia/hyposmia, fatigue, fever, epistaxis, cough and dental pain (Table 4).

Among 314 patients 58% had nasal block, of which 42% had bilateral nasal block and 16% had unilateral nasal block (Table 5).

Among 314 patients 42% did not have nasal block, 49% had progressive nasal block and 9% had non-progressive nasal block (Table 6).

Among the patients with nasal block (183 patients), 84% patients had progressive nasal block and 16% patients had non-progressive nasal block (Table 7).

Among 314 patients in the study 42% patients did not have nasal block, 5% had mild nasal block, 41% had moderate nasal block and 12% had severe nasal block (Table 8).

Among 314 patients, 45% patients had facial pain and 55% did not have facial pain (Table 9).

Among 314 patients in the sample 55% patients did not have facial pain, 8% patients had mild facial pain, 35% had moderate facial pain and 2% of patients had severe facial pain (Table 10).

Among 314 patients, 57% patients had facial congestion and 43% of patients did not have facial congestion (Table 11).

Among 314 patients in the study, 10% of patients had mild facial congestion, 44% had moderate facial congestion, 3% of patients had severe facial congestion and 43% patients did not have facial congestion (Table 12).

Among 314 patients in the study, 59% of patients had nasal discharge as one of the presenting symptom and 41% did not have nasal discharge (Table 13).

While analysing 314 patients in the study, 71% of patients did not have any olfactory disturbance and 29% of patients were having olfactory disturbance, of which 4% of patients were having Anosmia and 25% of patients were having Hyposmia (Table 14).

Among 314 patients in the study, 16% did not have headache, 3% had mild headache and 23% had moderate headache and severe headache in 58% of patients (Table 15).

Among 314 patients in the study, 42% of patients had halitosis and 58% of patients did not have Halitosis (Table 16).

Among 314 patients in the study, 96% patients did not have dental pain, 2% had mild dental pain and 2% had moderate dental pain (Table 17).

Among 314 patients in the study, 11% of patients had cough and 89% of patients did not have Cough (Table 18).

Among 314 patients, 21% of patients had fatigue and 79% of patients did not have fatigue (Table 19).

Among 314 patients, 21% of patients had fever and 79% of patients did not have fever (Table 20).

While analysing 314 patients, it was found that 14% of patients had Epistaxis as one of the presenting symptom and 86% did not have Epistaxis (Table 21).

Among 314 patients in the study, 5% of patients had asthma and 95% of patients did not have Asthma (Table 22).

Among 314 patients, 64% > of patients gave history of allergy and 36% of patients did not have allergy (Table 23).

Distribution of sample according to position of septum. While analysing the septum of 314 patients, it was found that 81% of patients had a deviated nasal septum and in 19% patient's septum was central (Table 24).

While analysing 314 patients, it was found that 83% of patients had mucosal congestion on examination and 17% of patients did not have mucosal congestion (Table 25).

While analysing 314 patients 68% of patients had nasal discharge on examination, of which 50% had mucoid discharge and 19% had purulent discharge; 31% of patients did not have any nasal discharge (Table 26).

Distribution of sample according to polyp. While analysing 314 patients in the study 31% of patients had nasal polyp on examination, of which 9% had unilateral nasal polyp and 22% had bilateral nasal polyp; 69% of patients did not have any nasal polyp (Table 27).

Distribution of sample according to posterior rhinoscopy findings.

During posterior rhinoscopy examination of 314 patients, 47% patients were normal and 34% patients had discharge, 13% polyp and 6% with both polyp and discharge (Table 28). While analysing the endoscopic score of 314 patients, the average score was 5.59 which varied from 0-12. While analysing the CT score of 254 patients, the average score was 11.04, which varied from 2 to 22. CT was taken only in patients whose symptoms persisted even after 3 months of medical treatment (Table 28),

Distribution of sample according to mode of treatment. Among 314 patients included in the study, 20% of patients were managed medically and rest 80% were managed with combined medical and surgical management (Table 29).

Among 254 patients who underwent surgery, 46%) of patients had oedematous mucosa, 33.4%) of patients had polyp, 1.6% patients had fungal debris alone, 4.3% of patients had oedematous mucosa and pus, 2.8% of patients had oedematous mucosa and polyp, 5.1% of patients had oedematous mucosa and fungal debris, 3.1% of patients had oedematous mucosa, fungal debris and pus, 0.3% of patients had polyp and fungal debris, 2.8% of patients had oedematous mucosa, polyp and fungal debris, polyp and pus was present in 0.3%) of patients and 0.3% of patients had oedematous mucosa, polyp, fungal debris and pus. Among 254 patients who underwent surgery, 34 patients had fungal debris (10.8% among total CRS patients) (Table 30).

Among 34 patient's sample sent for fungal culture and sensitivity, 94%) of fungal species isolated were Aspergillus, 3% Mucorand 3% Candida (Table 31).

DISCUSSION

This study included 314 consecutively selected patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, who presented to the Outpatient Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram during the study period of 1 year from April 2014 to April 2015. In the present study, a humble attempt was made to identify the clinical profile of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Patients who were taken up for surgery were followed up to operation table to find out the intraoperative findings and the patients with fungal sinusitis were noted and an attempt was also made to identify the species of fungus from microbiology. The results obtained were compared with many studies conducted previously. In the study, chronic rhinosinusitis was having an approximately equal distribution among males and females; Males 48%) and Females 52% with a ratio of 1.08:1. Quing Ling Fu et al (9) had 51.2%) females in their study. Engin Dursun et al (10) had a similar ratio of 1.1:1, Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (11) had a ratio of 1:1, Seyyed Abdollan Madani et al (12) and Ayman Al Madani et al (13) had males more than females in their study. Francis T K et al (14) male-to-female ratio of 1.1:1. The mean age group of presentation was 40 years in the study with a standard deviation of 14.2, which coincides with studies of Ayman Al Madani et al (13) where most common age group was 40 years. S P Gulati et al (15) had it as 30-37 years of age. Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (11) had a mean age group of 46.5 years, Bhattacharyya et al (16) had a mean age group of 42.3 years and James N Baraniuk et al (17) had a mean age group of 45.1 years. In our study, the average duration of symptoms was 3.7 years. Majority of patients had a duration of 1-5 years. Arild Danielsen et al (18) had mean symptom period as 2 to 12 years. In this study the common presenting symptoms were headache, nasal block and facial congestion, which coincided with studies of Bhattacharyya et al (16); 58% patients presented with nasal block in our study, among which 42% had bilateral and 16% had unilateral nasal block. Andre Alencar et al (19) had 83.7% of patients with nasal block. Bhattacharya N et al (16) had 51.8%) patients with nasal block. Mohammed Naieni et al (20) had 79.31% and T Shivakumar et al (21) had 86.66% patients with nasal block. Y Bajaj et al (22) and S P Gulati et al (15) showed the most common symptom as nasal block. Francis T K et al (14) had 84% patients with nasal obstruction. In this study, 45%) patients presented with facial pain which coincided with Bhattacharya N et al (23) with 47.3%) patients with facial pain. Andre Alencar et alt (19) had a variable presentation of facial pain in up to 80% of patients. D Hastan et al (24) had 64.7% patients with facial pain. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 73.3%) patients with facial pain; 57%) patients presented with facial congestion in our study. Bhattacharya N et al (23) had approximately 47%) patients with facial congestion. Francis T K et al (14) had 79%) patients with facial congestion. In this study, 59% of patients had history of nasal discharge which coincides with the study of T Shivakumar et al (21) where 58.09%) patients had nasal discharge. Mohammed Naiemi et al (20) had 75.64%) patients with nasal discharge. Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (11) had 67.92%) patients with nasal discharge. Wilma T Anselmo et al (25) had 63.6%) patients with nasal discharge. Olfactory disturbance was present in 29%) patients in our study, of which 14%) (13 patients) had anosmia and 86%) (78 patients) had hyposmia. Wilma T Anselmo et al (25) had 46% patients with olfactory disturbance. Mohammad Naiemi et al (19) had 87.18%) patients with olfactory disturbance. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 77.14%) patients with olfactory disturbance. In our study, 84%) patients presented with headache. Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (11) had 56.6%) patients with headache. H Gheriani eta (26) had 43.5% patients who had headache. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 62.83%) patients with headache and Mohammed Naeimi etaK20) had 38.46%) patients with headache. In this study, 42% patients presented with history of halitosis. Mohammad Naeimi et al (20) had 50% patients with halitosis. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 26.6% with halitosis, 5% patients had history of dental pain in our study. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 10.4% > patients with dental pain and Mohammad Naiemi et al (20) had 70% of patients with dental pain. It was observed that 11% of patients had history of cough in our study, which coincides with the study of T Shivakumar et al, (21) where 11.42% patients had history of cough. Mohammad Naeimi et al (20) observed 45% patients with cough. A H Morice committee members (27) had 4% patients with cough; 21% patients had fatigue in our study. James N Baraniuk et al (28) had 26% patients with fatigue. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 30.47%) patients with fatigue. In our study, 21% patients had history of fever (during acute exacerbations). Mohammad Naeimi et al (20) had 55% patients with fever; 14% of patients had history of epistaxis during the course of disease in our study. Isek K R et al (29) had 22% patients with epistaxis. In this study, 5% patients had history of asthma. Wilma T Anselmo et al (25) had 7% patients with asthma. Ahammed R Sedaghat et al (30) observed 19% patients with history of asthma. Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (11) had 26.8% > with asthma. L Badia et al (31) had 50% patients with coexistent asthma. D Jarvis et al (32) had a strong association between asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis. Jens U et al observed (33) 71% patients with history of asthma. In our study, 64% patients gave history of allergy. Engin Dursun et al (10) observed coexistence of allergy in 36.2% of patients. Isek KR et al (29) observed 28.8% of patients with associated allergy. Ahmad R Sedaghat et alt (30) observed an association of 27.5% patients with allergy; 81% patients had deviated nasal septum on examination in this study, which was similar to the study conducted by Seyyed Madani et al, (12) in which nasal septal deviation was observed in 81.7% of patients. V K Poorey and Neha Gupta (34) observed a strong correlation between nasal septal deviation and sinus disease. Similarly Calhoun et al, RPS Harar and Zachary M Sole (35,36,37) also observed a strong association between sinonasal disease and deviated nasal septum. T Shivakumar et al (21) had 51.42%) patients with nasal septal deviation. In this study, mucosal congestion was observed in 83% patients. In this study, nasal discharge was observed in 69% of patients, of which 50% were mucoid and 19% were purulent which coincides with the study conducted by Tomasz Grzegorzek et al (10) in which nasal discharge was observed in 67.92%) of patients. T Shivakumar et al (21) observed mucopus in 19.07%) patients. In our study, nasal polyposis was observed in 31% of patients, of which 9% were unilateral and 22% were bilateral. Also in 19% of patients, polyp was visible on posterior rhinoscopic examination. This coincided with the observation made by Tomasz Grzegorzek et al, (10) in which nasal polyp was found in 31.13%) of patients. James N Baranuik et al (17) observed nasal polyposis in 50% of patients. Observation made by W J Videler et al (31) showed presence of nasal polyposis in 52% of patients and 44.7% of patients in the study by T Shivakumar et al. (21) Postnasal discharge was observed in 40% of patients in our study. Study conducted by A H Morice (27) committee members observed post-nasal discharge in 60% of patients. T Shivakumar et al (21) observed post-nasal discharge in 70.47%) patients. In this study, the mean endoscopic score of the patients was 5.59. In the observation made by Kristen A Smith et al, (38) the mean endoscopic score was 6.3 in Asians. Observation made by Kristen A Smith et al (38) in a study was 6.9. In the present study, the mean CT score by Lund McKay score was 11.04. The observations made in mean CT score in study by Mikah M Likness et al (39) was 14.33, Kristen A Smith et al (38) was 13.5, Zachaiy M Sole et al (37) was 14.6 and W J Videler et al (31) was 13.5. Continued medical management were given for 20% patients and medical management followed by surgical management were given for 80% patients in our study, which almost coincides with the study of Enema Job Amodu et al (40) in which continued medical management was given for 20.7% > patients and combined medical and surgical management for 79.2% patients. In a study conducted by Kristen A Smith et al, (38) they came to the conclusion that continued medical therapy provides no additional benefits while Endoscopic Sinus Surgery provides significant improvement in several important clinical outcomes. In the present study, a humble attempt was also made to identify the percentage of fungal sinusitis among chronic rhinosinusitis and also to identify the species of fungi causing sinusitis. In this study, 10.8% > of patients had fungal sinusitis. Engin Dursun and Hakan Korkmaz et al (10) observed 13%, Seyyed Abdollah Madani et al (12) observed 12.1% and Ayman Al Madani et al (13) observed 16% prevalence of fungal sinusitis in their study. Study conducted by Arunaloke Chakrabarti et al (41) observed a very high prevalence of 27.5% in the study. In the present study, 94% of fungi were Aspergillus species, 3% candida and 3% mucor. In a study conducted by Arunaloke Chakrabarti et al, (41) 97.6% of fungi were Aspergillus species.

CONCLUSION

The mean age group of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis was 40 years. Chronic rhinosinusitis have almost equal distribution among males and females. Common presenting symptoms were headache, nasal discharge and nasal obstruction. Anatomical variations like deviated nasal septum can predispose to chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is more common in patients with allergic rhinitis. Mucosal congestion, oedematous mucosa and polyp were the common findings during examination. Most common fungal species isolated in culture was Aspergillus. Surgery plays a significant role in the management of refractory cases of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Limitations

The sample size was very small compared to the global burden of chronic rhinosinusitis. The time period of study was limited. Being a tertiary care centre, we had a refractory group of patients. So a good number of patients needed surgical management. Allergic rhinitis was diagnosed by history, confirmatory tests were not performed. Long term followup is needed to assess the surgical results.

REFERENCES

[1] Scott--Brown's Otorhinolaryngology. Head and Neck Surgery. 7* edn. Part 13. 2008: 1440-48, 1473-74,1479-90.

[2] Report of the Rhinosinusitis Task Force Committee Meeting. Alexandria, Virginia, August 17, 1996. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 1997; 117(3 Pt 2): S1-68.

[3] Lanza DC, Kennedy DW. Adult rhinosinusitis defined Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery 1997; 117(3 Pt 2): S1-7.

[4] Cherry DK, Woodwell DA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2000 summary, National Center for Health Statistics Vital Health. Adv Data 2002; (328): 1-32.

[5] Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, et al. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology 2012; 50(1): 1-12.

[6] Hsueh WD, Conley DB, Kim H, et al. Identifying the clinical symptoms for improving the symptomatic diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013; 3(4): 307-14.

[7] Ference EH, Tan BK, Hulse KE, et al. Commentary on gender differences in prevalence, treatment and quality of life of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy Rhinol (Providence) 2015; 6(2): 82-8.

[8] Benninger MS, Ferguson BJ, Hadley JA, et al. Adult chronic rhinosinusitis definitions, diagnosis, epidemiology and pathophysiology. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 2003; 129(3 Suppl)S1-32.

[9] Fu QL, Ma JX, Ou CQ, et al. Influence of self-reported chronic rhinosinusitis on health related quality of life: a population-based survey. PLoS One 2015; 10(5): e0126881.

[10] Dursun E, Korkmaz H, Eryilmaz A, et al. Clinical predictors of long-term success after sinus surgery. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 2003; 129(5): 526-31.

[11] Grzegorzek T, Kolebacz B, Stryjewska-Makuch G, et al. The influence of selected preoperative factors on the course of endoscopic surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Adv Clin Exp Med 2014; 23(1): 69-78.

[12] Madani SA, Hashimi SA, Modanluo M. The incidence of nasal septal deviation and its relation with chronic rhinosinusitis in patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery. JPMA 2015; 65(6): 612-4.

[13] Al-Madani A. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery realistic expectations Alexandra Bulletin 2007; 4: 885.

[14] Ling FTK, Kountakis SE. Important clinical symptoms in patients undergoing functional endscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2007; 117(6): 1090-3.

[15] Gulati SP, Wadhera R, Ahuja N, et al. Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty. Indian Journal of Otolaryngol and Head and Neck Surgery 2009; 61(1): 27-9.

[16] Bhattacharyya N. The economic burden and symptom manifestation of chronic rhinosinusitis. American Journal of Rhinology 2003; 17(1): 27-32.

[17] Baranuik JN, Maibach H. Pathophysiological classification of chronic rhinosinusitis. Respiratory Research 2005; 6: 149.

[18] Danielsen A, Olofsson J. Endoscopic endonasal sinus surgery. A long-term follow-up study. Acta Otolaryngology 1996; 116(4): 611-9.

[19] Alencar A, Fernandes A, Tamashiro E, et al. Rhinosinusitis evidence and experience. A summary. Braz J Otorhinolaryngology 2015; 81(1 Suppl): S1-S49.

[20] Naeimi M, Garkaz M, Naeimi MR. Comparison of sinonasal symptoms in patients with nasal septal deviation and patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2013; 25(70): 116.

[21] Shivakumar T, Sambandan AP. Retrospective analysis of effectiveness of functional endoscopic sinus surgery in treatment of adult chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical treatment. Indian J Otolaryngology Head Neck Surg 2011; 63(4): 321-4.

[22] Bajaj Y, Gadepalli C, Reddy TN, et al. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: review of 266 patients. The Internet Journal of Otolaryngology 2006; 6(1): 7.

[23] Bhattacharyya N. Clinical and symptom criteria for accurate diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2006; 116(7 Pt 2 Suppl 110): 1-22.

[24] Hastan D, Fokkens WJ, Bachert C, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis in Europe--an underestimated disease. A GA2LEN study. Allergy 2011; 66(9): 1216-23.

[25] Anselmo-Lima WT, Sakano E. Rhinosinusitis: evidence and experience. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2015; 81(1): 808-14.

[26] Gheriani H, Curran A, Timon C. Endoscopic sinus surgery outcome in patients with symptomatic chronic rhinosinusitis and minimal changes on computerised tomography. Ir Med J 2006; 99(1): 15-6.

[27] Morice AH, Fontana GA, Sovijarvi AR, et al. The diagnosis and management of chronic cough. European Resp Journal 2004; 24(3): 481-92.

[28] Baranuik JN, Maibach H. Pathophysiological classification of chronic rhinosinusitis. Respiratory Research 2005; 6: 149.

[29] Iseh KR, Makusidi M. Rhinosinusitis: a retrospective analysis of clinical pattern and outcome in North western Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2010; 9(1): 20-6.

[30] Sedaghat AR, Gray ST, Caradonna SD, et al. Clustering of chronic rhinosinusitis symptomatology reveals novel associations with objective clinical and demographic characteristics. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015; 29(2): 100-5.

[31] Videler WJ, Badia L, Harvey RJ, et al. Lack of efficacy of long-term, low-dose azithromycin in chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized control trial. Allergy 2011; 66(11): 1457-68.

[32] Jarvis D, Newson R, Lotvall J, et al. Asthma in adults and its association with chronic rhinosinusitis. The GA2LEN survey in Europe. Allergy 2012; 67(1): 91-8.

[33] Ponikau JU, Sherris DA, Kita H, et al. Intranasal antifungal treatment in 51 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110(6): 862-6.

[34] Poorey VK, Gupta N. Endoscopic and Computed Tomographic influence of nasal septal deviation on lateral wall of nose and its relation to sinus diseases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 66(3): 330-5.

[35] Calhoun KH, Waggenspack GA, Simpson CB, et al. Computed tomographic evaluation of the paranasalsinus in symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991; 104(4): 480-3.

[36] Harar RP, Chadha NK, Rogers G. The role of septal deviation in adult chronic rhinosinusitis a study of 500 patients. Rhinology 2004; 42(3): 126-30.

[37] Soler ZM, Mace JC, Litvack JR, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis, race and ethnicity. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2012; 26(2): 100-16.

[38] Smith KA, Smith TL, Mace JC, et al. Endoscopic sinus surgery compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014; 4(10): 823-7.

[39] Likness MM, Pallanch JF, Sherris DA, et al. Computed tomography scan as an objective measure of disease severity in chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 150(2): 305-11.

[40] Amodu EJ, Fasunla AJ, Akano AO, et al. Chronic rhinosinusitis: correlation of symptoms with CT scan findings. Pan African Medical Journal 2014; 18: 40.

[41] Chakrabarti A, Rudramurthy SM, Panda N, et al. Epidemiology of chronic fungal rhinosinusitis in rural India. Mycoses 2015; 58(5): 294-302.

Sindhu V. Nath [1], Susan James [2], Nimisha Suresh [3]

[1] Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Thiwvananthapuram, Kerala.

[2] Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Thiwvananthapuram, Kerala.

[3] Postgraduate Student, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Thiwvananthapuram, Kerala.

Financial or Other, Competing Interest: None.

Submission 16-01-2017, Peer Review 08-02-2017,

Acceptance 15-02-2017, Published 23-02-2017.

Corresponding Author:

Dr. Sindhu V. Nath, Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Governmen t Medical College, Thiruvanan thapuram, Kerala.

E-mail: sindhuvn@gmail.com

DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2017/276
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Sample according to Sex

Sex      No. of Patients   Percentage

Female         164            52%
Male           150            48%
Total          314

Table 2. Age Wise Distribution

Age in Years   Male   Female    Total No.     %
                               of Patients

10-20 Years     21      12         33        11%
21-30 Years     27      33         60        19%
31-40 Years     29      44         73        23%
41-50 years     35      35         70        22%
51-60 Years     24      29         53        17%
61-70 Years     14      11         25        8%
               Mean [+ or -] SD39.9 [+ or -] 14.2

Table 3. Duration of Symptoms

Duration of          No. of    Percentage
Symptoms in Years   Patients

1-5 Years             249        79.3%
6-10 Years             49        15.6%
11-15 Years             8         2.5%
16-20 Years             5         1.6%
21-25 Years             0         0.0%
26-30 Years             1         0.3%
31-35 Years             0         0.0%
36-40 Years             2         0.6%
Total                 314

Table 4. Presenting Symptoms

Presenting Symptoms   Present   Percentage (%)

Nasal Block             183          58%
Facial Pain             141          45%
Facial Congestion       179          57%
Headache                265          84%
Dental Pain             17            5%
Nasal Discharge         186          59%
Epistaxis               45           14%
Anosmia/Hyposmia        91           29%
Halitosis               133          42%
Fever                   52           17%
Fatigue                 66           21%
Cough                   36           11%

Table 5. Nasal Block

Category     No. of Patients   Percentage

No block           131            42%
Unilateral         50             16%
Bilateral          133            42%
Total              314            100%

Table 6. Nasal Block Nature

Nature            No. of Patients   Percentage

No block                131            42%
Non-Progressive         29              9%
Progressive             154            49%
Total                   314

Table 7. Nasal Block Nature

Nature            No. of Patients   Percentage

Non-Progressive   29                16%
Progressive       154               84%
Total             183               100%

Table 8. Nasal Block Severity

Nasal Block Severity   No. of Patients   Percentage

No Nasal Block               132            42%
Mild Nasal Block             15              5%
Moderate Nasal Block         128            41%
Severe Nasal Block           39             12%
Total                        314            100%

Table 9. Facial Pain

Facial Pain      No. of Patients   Percentage

No Facial Pain         173            55%
Facial Pain            141            45%
Total                  314            100%

Table 10. Facial Pain Severity

Facial Pain            No. of Patients   Percentage

No Facial Pain               173            55%
Mild Facial Pain             25              8%
Moderate Facial Pain         111            35%
Severe Facial Pain            5              2%
Total                        314            100%

Table 11. Facial Congestion

Facial Congestion      No. of Patients   Percentage

No Facial Congestion         135            43%
Facial Congestion            179            57%
Total                        314

Table 12. Facial Congestion Severity

Facial Congestion            No. of Patients   Percentage

No Facial Congestion               135            43%
Mild Facial Congestion             31             10%
Moderate Facial Congestion         137            44%
Severe Facial Congestion           11              3%
Total                              314

Table 13. Nasal Discharge

Nasal Discharge   No. of Patients   Percentage

Present                 186            59%
Absent                  128            41%
Total                   314            100%

Table 14. Olfactory Disturbance

Hyposmia   Anosmia   Absence of Olfactory Disturbance

78           13                     223
25%          4%                     71%

Table 15. Headache

Headache            No. of Patients   Percentage

No Headache               49             16%
Mild Headache             11              3%
Moderate Headache         71             23%
Severe Headache           183            58%
Total                     314            100%

Table 16. Halitosis

Halitosis   No. of Patients   Percentage

Present           133            42%
Absent            181            58%
Total             314

Table 17. Dental Pain

Dental Pain            No. of Patients   Percentage

No Dental Pain               303            96%
Mild Dental Pain              5              2%
Moderate Dental Pain          6              2%
Severe Dental Pain            0              0%
Total                        314            100%

Table 18. Cough

Cough     No. of Patients   Percentage

Present         36             11%
Absent          278            89%
Total           314            100%

Table 19. Fatigue

Fatigue      No. of Patients      Percentage

Present            66                21%
Absent             248               79%
Total              314

Table 20. Fever

Fever     No. of Patients   Percentage

Present         66             21%
Absent          248            79%
Total           314            100%

Table 21. Epistaxis

Epistaxis   No. of Patients   Percentage

Present           45             14%
Absent            269            86%
Total             314            100%

Table 22. Asthma

Asthma    No. of Patients   Percentage

Present         16              5%
Absent          298            95%
Total           314            100%

Table 23. Allergy

Allergy   No. of Patients   Percentage

Present         201            64%
Absent          113            36%
Total           314

Table 24. Examination Findings of Septum

Septum         Patients   Percentage

Deviated         253         81%
Not Deviated      61         19%
Total            314         100%

Table 25. Mucosal Congestion

Mucosal Congestion   Patients   Percentage

Present                262         83%
Absent                  52         17%
Total                  314         100%

Table 26. Other Examination Findings of Nasal Discharge

          Nasal Discharge

98                158   58
31%               50%   19%

 Examination Findings of Septum

Table 27. Polyp

Absent   Unilateral   Bilateral
216          30          68
69%          9%          22%

Table 28. Posterior Rhinoscopy

Posterior Rhinoscopy   No. of Patients   Percentage

Normal                       146            47%
Discharge                    106            34%
Polyp                        42             13%
Discharge and Polyp          20              6%

Table 29. Management

Management                       Patients   Percentage

Medical Management                  60         20%
Medical + Surgical Management      254         80%
Total                              314         100%

Table 30. Surgical Findings

Findings                              No. of Patients     %

Oedematous mucosa                           116          46%
Polyp                                       85         33.4%
Fungal debris                                4          1.6%
Oedematous mucosa + Pus                     11          4.3%
Oedematous mucosa + Polyp                    7          2.8%
Oedematous mucosa + Fungal debris           13          5.1%
Oedematous mucosa + Fungal                   8          3.1%
debris + Pus
Polyp + Fungal debris                        1          0.3%
Oedematous mucosa + Polyp +                  7          2.8%
Fungal debris
Polyp + Pus                                  1          0.3%
Oedematous mucosa + Polyp + Fungal           1          0.3%
Debris + Pus

table 31. Fungal Strain

             Microbiology--Fungal Strain

Aspergil     Muc   Candi   Curvula   Bipola
lus          or     da       ria      ris

32            1      1        0        0
94%          3%     3%       0%        0%
COPYRIGHT 2017 Akshantala Enterprises Private Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original Research Article
Author:Nath, Sindhu V.; James, Susan; Suresh, Nimisha
Publication:Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences
Article Type:Report
Date:Feb 23, 2017
Words:5475
Previous Article:Can levels of urinary matrix metalloproteinases (MMPS) act as an alternative to Gleason's scoring in prostatic malignancies.
Next Article:Prevalence of fatty liver and its association with high total cholesterol in people of Tumkur, India.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters