Cargando…

Assessment of bioabsorbable implant treatment for nasal valve collapse compared to a sham group: a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND: Dynamic nasal valve collapse (NVC) is a common factor contributing to nasal obstruction; however, it is often underdiagnosed and untreated. An in‐office, minimally invasive procedure addressing dynamic NVC uses a bioabsorbable implant (Latera) to support the lateral nasal wall. This stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stolovitzky, Pablo, Senior, Brent, Ow, Randall A., Mehendale, Neelesh, Bikhazi, Nadim, Sidle, Douglas M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6771676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31226238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/alr.22362
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Dynamic nasal valve collapse (NVC) is a common factor contributing to nasal obstruction; however, it is often underdiagnosed and untreated. An in‐office, minimally invasive procedure addressing dynamic NVC uses a bioabsorbable implant (Latera) to support the lateral nasal wall. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with sham control. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, single‐blinded RCT, 137 patients from 10 clinics were randomized into 2 arms: treatment arm (70 patients) and sham control arm (67 patients). Outcome measures were followed through 3 months after the procedure. The primary endpoint was the responder rate (percentage of patients with reduction in clinical severity by ≥1 category or ≥20% reduction in Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation [NOSE] score). RESULTS: Before the procedure, there were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics and nasal obstruction symptom measures between the 2 arms. Three months after the procedure, responder rate was significantly higher for the treatment arm compared to the control (82.5% vs 54.7%, p = 0.001). Patients in the treatment arm also had a significantly greater decrease in NOSE score (–42.4 ± 23.4 vs –22.7 ± 27.9, p < 0.0001) and significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (–39.0 ± 29.7 vs –13.3 ± 30.0, p < 0.0001) than the sham control arm. Seventeen patients reported 19 procedure/implant‐related adverse events, all of which resolved with no clinical sequelae. CONCLUSION: Our study shows the safety and effectiveness of the bioabsorbable implant in reducing patients’ nasal obstruction symptoms.