Surgical Management of Choanal Atresia With Intranasal Hegar’s Dilator and Transnasal Endoscopic Excision: A 20-year Retrospective Comparative Study

Background Although choanal atresia (CA) was first described 250 years ago, its description and understanding remain incomplete, as is the distinction between unilateral and bilateral CA. Among the surgical techniques introduced to manage this condition are intranasal Hegar’s dilator (IHD) and transnasal endoscopic excision (TNEE). Objectives This study retrospectively evaluated the outcomes and effectiveness of IHD and TNEE in the treatment of patients with CA, including differences in the incidence of re-stenosis with these techniques. Methods Patients diagnosed with CA who underwent surgical interventions in the Otolaryngology Department of Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, between 1997 and 2017 were analyzed. Postoperative outcomes including re-stenosis rates were compared in patients who underwent IHD and TNEE. Factors associated with patient outcomes were analyzed, including ages at diagnosis and surgery, nationality, gender, type of atresia (unilateral/bilateral and bony/membranous/mixed), surgical intervention (IHD or TNEE), and re-stenosis and need for revision surgery after IHD and TNEE. Results A total of 30 patients were diagnosed with CA, including 21 (70%) girls and 9 (30%) boys. Of them, 18 (60%) patients were diagnosed at younger than one month of age, 28 (93%) were Saudi nationals, and 20 (67.70%) were aged younger than three months at the time of surgery. Of these 30 patients, 17 (56.70%, all Saudi nationals) underwent IHD, and 13 (43.30%), including 15 Saudi nationals, underwent TNEE. The 17 patients who underwent IHD included 13 (76.50%) girls and 4 (23.50%) boys, whereas the 13 patients who underwent TNEE included 8 (61.50%) girls and 5 (38.50%) boys. Fifteen patients (50%) had mixed-type CA, nine (30%) had bony-type CA, and six (20%) had membranous-type CA. Twenty-six (86.67%) patients underwent primary surgery, whereas four (13.33%) underwent revision surgery; of the latter, three (75%) had undergone primary IHD, and one had undergone primary TNEE. Only one (3.33%) patient experienced re-stenosis after revision surgery, which consisted of IHD. Twelve patients (40%) underwent stenting, with one developing re-stenosis. The relationships between surgical approach and re-stenosis after primary and secondary surgery were not statistically significant. Conclusion The outcomes in patients with CA treated with IHD and TNEE are comparable. Rates of re-stenosis and need for revision surgery do not differ significantly in patients treated with these surgical approaches.