Objectives: The aim of this controlled follow-up study was to compare the need for revision surgery, long-term efficacy, and satisfaction in chronic rhinosinusitis patients who had undergone maxillary sinus operation with either balloon sinuplasty or traditional endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) technique.
Methods: Thirty-nine ESS patients and 36 balloon patients of our previously described cohort, who had been primarily operated in 2008 to 2010, were contacted by phone. Symptoms, satisfaction, and need for revision surgery were asked. In addition, we collected data of patients who had undergone primary maxillary sinus balloon sinuplasty in the Helsinki University Hospital during the years 2005 to 2019. As a control group, we collected data of patients who had undergone primary maxillary sinus ESS at 3 Finnish University Hospitals, and 1 Central Hospital in years 2005, 2008, and 2011.
Results: Altogether, 77 balloon patients and 82 ESS patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 5.3 years in balloon group and 9.8 years in ESS group. Revision surgery was performed on 17 balloon patients and 6 ESS patients. In the survival analysis, the balloon sinuplasty associated significantly with a higher risk of revision surgery compared to ESS. According to the phone interviews, 82% of ESS patients and 75% of balloon patients were very satisfied with the primary operation.
Conclusion: Although the patient groups expressed equal satisfaction and change in symptoms after the operations, the need for revision surgery was higher after balloon sinuplasty than after ESS. This should be emphasized when counselling patients regarding surgical options.
Keywords: balloon sinuplasty; chronic rhinosinusitis; endoscopic sinus surgery; revision surgery; satisfaction.