Objective: The objective of this research was to compare between endoscopic and conventional septoplasty through a meta-analysis study.
Methods: In this meta-analysis we enrolled 22 articles fulfilled inclusion criteria as having symptomatic deviated nasal septum (headache, nasal obstruction, hyposmia and epistaxis) and refractory to medical treatment that diagnosed clinically, radiological and endoscopically having deviated nasal septum or spur.
Results: endoscopic septoplasty offer advantages, with fewer complications compared with traditional open technique; According to the study, patients reported better improvement after endoscopic septoplasty over conventional septoplasty regarding: headache (RR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18, I2 =0. 01%, P value = 0. 948), nasal obstruction (RR = 0.14, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.20, I2 =43.14%, P value = 0. 003) and posterior nasal drip. Endoscopic septoplasty performed much better according to objective parameters; persistent posterior deviation, residual septal deviation and residual spur (RR= -1.58, 95% CI = -2.39 to -0.76, I2 =0%, P value =0. 967). Endoscopic septoplasty was safer than conventional approach in occurrence of facial swelling, postoperative hemorrhage, mucosal tear, length of postoperative stay, septal hematoma (RR= -1.45, 95% CI = -2.82 to -0.09, I2 =0%, P value =1.000), septal perforation also nasal pain and synechiae.
Conclusion: Patients with endoscopic septoplasty had better outcome regarding nasal blockage, postnasal drip, headache and septal deviation. Furthermore, Endoscopic septoplasty reported safer result than conventional approach as it reduces residual pain, facial swelling, postoperative hemorrhage, mucosal tear, and length of postoperative stay, septal hematoma, septal perforation, nasal pain, and synechiae.