Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T16:06:24.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of non-response in quality control of nasal septal surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

M T Egeland ,
M Tarangen ,
C Gay ,
L K Døsen  and
R Haye
M T Egeland
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
M Tarangen
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
C Gay
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
L K Døsen
Affiliation:
Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
R Haye*
Affiliation:
Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Rolf Haye, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, 0440 Oslo, Norway Fax: 0047 2322 5646 E-mail: rolf.haye@medisin.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Questionnaires are often used to assess the results of nasal septoplasty, but response rates vary widely. The possible bias caused by non-responders was evaluated to determine the validity of questionnaire results.

Methods:

Post-operative questionnaires employing visual analogue scales for nasal obstruction were mailed to 182 patients. The 62 non-responders (34.1 per cent) were contacted by telephone, 58 (93.5 per cent) of whom were contactable and responded orally to the questionnaire.

Results:

Non-responders were younger, but no different from responders with regard to gender, smoking habits or allergies. Post-operative visual analogue scale obstruction scores were slightly, but not statistically, higher in non-responders. However, because non-responders’ pre-operative scores were lower, obstruction scores improved less than in responders. The main reason for not responding was forgetfulness. Some would have preferred an electronic version of the questionnaire.

Conclusion:

Although post-operative obstruction scores did not differ between the groups, nasal obstruction scores improved more among responders than non-responders. Thus, low response rates may cause bias.

Keywords

Nasal Surgical ProceduresOutcomes AssessmentVisual Analog Scale
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 12 , December 2016 , pp. 1130 - 1136
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

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.)

References

1 Rhee, JS, Sullivan, CD, Frank, DO, Kimbell, JS, Garcia, GJ. A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014;16:219–25Google Scholar
2 Haye, R, Amlie, E, Shireyaeva, O, Døsen, LK. Evaluation of a nasal surgical questionnaire designed for monitoring surgical outcomes and comparing different surgical techniques. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:656–61Google Scholar
3 Illum, P. Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: long-term results after randomized turbinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1997;254(suppl 1):S89–92Google Scholar
4 Stewart, MG, Smith, TL, Weaver, EM, Witsell, DL, Yueh, B, Hannley, MT et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results for Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:283–90Google Scholar
5 Li, HY, Lin, Y, Chen, NH, Lee, LA, Fang, TJ, Wang, PC. Improvement of quality of life after nasal surgery alone for patients with obstructive sleep apnea and nasal obstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:429–33Google Scholar
6 Sundh, C, Sunnergren, O. Long-term symptom relief after septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2871–5Google Scholar
7 Toyserkani, NM, Frish, T. Are too many septal deviations operated on? A retrospective patient's satisfaction questionnaire with 11 years follow up. Rhinology 2012;50:185–90Google ScholarPubMed
8 Croy, I, Hummel, T, Pade, A, Pade, J. Quality of life following nasal surgery. Laryngoscope 2010;120:825–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Bulut, OC, Wallner, F, Plinkert, PK, Prochnow, S, Kuhnt, C, Baumann, I. Quality of life after septoplasty measured with the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 2015;53:54–8Google Scholar
10 Dinis, PB, Haider, H. Septoplasty: long-term evaluation of results. Am J Otolaryngol 2002;23:85–90 Google Scholar
11 Siegel, NS, Glicklich, RE, Tagnizadeh, F, Chang, Y. Outcomes of septoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:228–32Google Scholar
12 Gandomi, B, Bayat, A, Kazemei, T. Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;31:189–92Google Scholar
13 Solberg, TK, Sørlie, A, Sjaavik, K, Nygaard, ØP, Ingebrigtsen, T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degeneration disorder of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 2011;82:56–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Hutchings, A, Gross, Frie K, Neuburger, J, van der Meulen, J, Black, N. Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemol 2013;66:218–25Google Scholar
15 Nota, SP, Stooker, JA, Ring, D. Differences in response rates between mail, e-mail, and telephone follow-up in hand surgery research. Hand (N Y) 2014;9:504–10Google Scholar
16 Bijur, PE, Latimer, CT, Gallagher, EJ. Validation of a verbally administered rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:390–2Google Scholar
17 Hjermstad, MJ, Fayers, PM, Haugen, DF, Caraceni, A, Hanks, GW, Loge, JH et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;41:1073–93Google Scholar
18 Arunachalam, PS, Kitcher, E, Gray, J, Wilson, JA. Nasal septal surgery: evaluation of symptomatic and general health outcomes. Clin Otolaryngol 2001;26:367–70Google Scholar
19 Uppal, S, Mistry, H, Nadig, S, Back, G, Coatesworth, A. Evaluation of patient benefit from nasal septal surgery for nasal obstruction. Auris Nasus Larynx 2005;32:129–37Google Scholar
20 Holmstrøm, M. The use of objective measures in selecting patients for septal surgery. Rhinology 2010;48:387–93Google Scholar