Download

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Efficacy of various surgical methods in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A network meta-analysis

Qiwei Xiea*, Jiatian Yuana, Yaowen Wangb

aMedical College of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

bDepartment of Otorhinolaryngogy, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China

Abstract

Objective: We often use surgery to treat allergic rhinitis (AR) patients who have failed drug treatment, but there is currently no clear gold standard for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Using network meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of AR.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, Wan Fang Data, and CNKI databases were searched to collect clinical randomized controlled trials of AR with different surgical methods that met the inclusion criteria. After two investigators independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, R software was used to evaluate inconsistency using the node splitting method, and Stata15.1 was used to estimate the ranking probability of treatment.

Results: A total of 47 randomized control studies involving 17 surgical schemes and 4144 participants were included. The results showed that after excluding surgical methods that did not form a closed loop, in AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, surgical efficiency and symptom score ranked the same, which were posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN), Vidian neurectomy (VN), anterior ethmoid neurectomy (AEN), nasal septal reconstruction (NSR), and bilateral inferior turbinoplasty (BIT). In AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, the effective rate (OR = 5.06; 95% CI = 2.75–9.32) and symptom and sign scores (MD = -3.80; 95% CI = -6.50–1.09) of PNN + FESS (functional endoscopic sinusitis surgery) were higher than FESS, and there was a significant difference.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that PNN is the best single operation for patients with AR and without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, and the combination of multiple procedures may be better than a single operation. FESS + PNN is more effectual in AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Key words: allergic rhinitis, network meta-analysis, surgical treatment

*Corresponding author: Qiwei Xie, Medical College of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China. Email address: [email protected]

Received 11 July 2022; Accepted 2 November 2022; Available online 1 March 2023

DOI: 10.15586/aei.v51i2.726

Copyright: Xie Q, et al.
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects more than 25% of the global population.1 The treatment of AR includes avoiding allergen, drug therapy,2,3 immunotherapy,4 and surgery. In the face of patients with AR who are ineffective to drug treatment, we may need surgical intervention. At first, we could not treat AR by neurotomy, but it was after 1970s and 1980s that Vidian neurectomy (VN) was used to treat AR.5 Later, posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN) and anterior ethmoid neurectomy (AEN) were developed. At present, there are two main types of surgery for AR according to its mechanism6: (1) one is the surgery to improve nasal ventilation, such as nasal septal reconstruction (NSR), bilateral inferior turbinoplasty (BIT), and functional endoscopic sinusitis surgery (FESS). Inferior turbinate hypertrophy is a major factor affecting nasal ventilation. Many techniques and methods for reducing inferior turbinate volume have been reported, including submucosal resection, partial turbinectomy, radiofrequency ablation or cryoablation, microdeburring, and laser turbineplasty.7 NSR can be used in patients with severe nasal septum deviation, while FESS is mainly used in patients with nasal polyps. (2) The other is to treat AR by removing the parasympathetic and sensory nerves, such as VN, PNN, and AEN.6 During the operation of VN, the Vidian nerve trunk needs to be cut off nonselectively.8 Therefore, while improving the symptoms of AR, it often leads to obvious symptoms such as dry eye and upper palate numbness. In severe cases, complications such as eye movement disorder and sphenopalatine artery hemorrhage may occur. PNN selectively cuts off the nerve branches distributed in the nasal cavity, so the postoperative pain response is smaller and the surgical complications are less.9 At present, a large number of experiments have shown that the above surgical methods can improve AR,10 but there is no gold standard procedure for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.11 In this study, network meta-analysis was used to study the differences in the efficacy of different surgical methods and to evaluate them, so as to provide a reference for clinicians in the choice of surgical methods for allergic rhinitis.

Material and Methods

Search methods

This study has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42022328991).

We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wan Fang Data and CNKI and collected the randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria up to February 2022. At the same time, the references included in the study were searched to supplement and obtain the relevant data. Keywords and subject terms included “allergic rhinitis,” “posterior nasal neurectomy,” “Vidian neurectomy,” “anterior ethmoid neurectomy,” “nasal septal reconstruction,” “functional endoscopic sinusitis surgery,” and “bilateral inferior turbinoplasty.”

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The studies included should comply with the following inclusion criteria: (1) Regardless of age, gender, etiology, and ethnic group; (2) The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is in line with the “Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis”10; (3) With or without nasal septum deviation, sinusitis, nasal polyps, or other nasal structure problems;(4) All patients can tolerate surgical treatment; (5) No abnormal coagulation function and bleeding tendency; (6) No mental illness.

The exclusion criteria were: (1) Only abstract without full text and contact author did not reply; (2) Incomplete reporting of important data and no postoperative follow-up data; (3) Multiple studies from the same center, with data duplication, or literature with insufficient data; (4) Only discuss the literature of a single treatment modality.

Data extraction and methodological quality of included studies

Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and cross-checked. If case of any disagreement, it was resolved through discussion or consultation with a third party. In literature screening, the title of the article was read first, and after excluding obviously irrelevant literature, the abstract and full text were further read to determine whether to include or not. If necessary, the original study authors were contacted by email or through telephone for undetermined but important information. Data extraction included research title, first author, publication year, age, gender, course of the disease, follow-up time, intervention measures, and outcome indicators.

The quality of the literature was assessed by two reviewers who independently analyzed the included literature according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment criteria, and disagreements were reached through discussion. Evaluation contents included: (1) The generation of random allocation plan; (2) The concealment of the allocation plan; (3) The implementation of the blinding method; (4) The integrity of the result data; (5) The nonselective reporting of the results; (6) Other biases. “Low risk” indicated low risk of bias, “High risk” indicated high risk of bias, and “Unclear risk” indicated that the literature does not provide sufficient or uncertain information for bias assessment.

Statistical Analysis

Using Stata 15.1, a network meta-analysis was performed through a frequentist framework, analyzing indirect and direct evidences from a large amount of data. Corresponding network diagrams were drawn with different interventions after each pairwise comparison. The size of the circle indicated the number of specific interventions, and the thickness of the arm indicated the number of studies included. Results for these dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CrIs) for continuous variables results were presented as means difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. In addition, R software performed node-splitting tests to analyze the degree of inconsistency between indirect and direct evidence. The rank probability of efficacy and safety of the 17 surgical modalities was assessed using the cumulative ranking area under the curve (SUCRA). The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using Cochrane.

Results

Studies included in the network meta-analysis

A total of 6569 relevant literature were obtained from the literature screening process and preliminary examination of the results, of which 1331 were duplicate -publications, and 4852 articles were excluded due to unrelated titles and abstracts. After layer-by-layer screening, the remaining 386 articles were selected for full-text review, 332 articles that were assessed as unqualified were excluded, and 47 articles, including 4144 patients, were finally included.1258 The search and selection steps are illustrated in Figure 1. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The results showed that the quality of all studies included in the RCT was high, and the risk bias was mainly due to the withdrawal of some subjects from the study. The bias risk assessment results of the included studies are shown in ss 2 and 3.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of study inclusion.

Effective rate of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps

From Figure 4A, we found that PNN + AEN, VN + BIT, AEN + BIT, and PNN + BIT did not form a closed loop with other surgical methods, and the accuracy of the results is open to question. In Figures 5A and 6A, we found that VN + BIT (92.2%) had the highest ranking of the effective rate, PNN (88.5%) had the highest ranking of the effective rate in the single surgical modality and was comparable to NSR (OR = 5.71; 95% CI = 1.21–26.96), and BIT (OR = 6.19; 95% CI = 1.49–25.64) was significantly different. Surgical methods related to neurotomy, such as PNN (71.3%), VN (32.4%), and AEN (28.6%), were higher than those of NSR (8.6%) and BIT (5.6%). BIT (5.6%) was the lowest ranked surgical method, and was significantly worse than VN + BIT (OR = 37.85; 95% CI = 1.73–830.14), PNN + AEN (OR = 7.16; 95% CI = 1.83–28.05), PNN (OR = 6.19; 95% CI = 1.49, 25.64), AEN + BIT (OR = 5.49; 95% CI = 1.76–17.11), PNN + BIT (OR = 4.33; 95% CI = 1.20–15.61), AEN + NSR (OR = 3.58; 95% CI = 1.32–9.68), and NSR + BIT (OR = 3.52; 95% CI = 2.02–6.16). There were also significant differences.

Figure 2 Risk of bias graph.

Figure 3 Risk of bias summary.

Figure 4 The evidence network for trials enrolled in this network meta-analysis.

Figure 5 Odds ratio estimates with 95% credible intervals of Effective rate and means difference with 95% credible intervals of Symptoms and Signs Scores.

Figure 6 Cumulative sucra value, the larger the area under the curve, the higher the ranking.

Symptoms and signs scores of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps

In Figure 4B, VN + NSR, PNN + BIT, AEN + BIT, and PNN + NSR also did not form a closed loop with other surgical modalities. Figures 5B and 6B suggest that PNN (88.5%) had the highest ranking of symptom and sign scores, compared with NSR + BIT (MD = -1.68; 95% CI = -3.07–-0.28), AEN (MD = -2.02; 95% CI = -3.82–-0.23), NSR (MD = -2.38; 95% CI = -3.88–-0.87), PNN + BIT (MD = -4.37; 95% CI = -6.38–-2.36), and AEN + BIT (MD = -4.63; 95% CI = -7.08–-2.15), and BIT (MD = -4.86; 95% CI = -6.55–-3.16), and had a large difference. Similar to the efficiency ranking, BIT (6.1%) was the lowest ranked surgical modality, compared with PNN (MD = -4.86; 95% CI = -6.55–-3.16), VN + NSR (MD = -4.81; 95% CI = -7.22–-2.40), AEN + NSR (MD = -4.21; 95% CI = -5.88–-2.54), PNN + NSR (MD = -4.18; 95% CI = -6.57–-1.79), VN (MD = -4.06; 95% CI = -5.58–-2.54), NSR + BIT (MD = -3.18; 95% CI = -4.45–-1.90), AEN (MD = -2.83; 95% CI = -4.21–-1.45), and NSR (MD = -2.48; 95% CI = -3.81–-1.15), and there was a significant difference. At the same time, the ranking results of the two evaluation methods at the time of a single operation were the same: PNN, VN, AEN, NSR, BIT.

Response rate in allergic rhinitis combined with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ARwCRSwNP) patients

Figures 4C, 5C, and 6C suggested that none of the surgical approaches formed a closed loop. PNN + FESS is significantly different from FESS (OR = 5.0; 95% CI = 2.75–9.32). Their efficiency rankings are PNN + FESS◽76.2%), AEN + FESS (72.3%), and FESS (1.5%).

Symptoms and signs scores of ARwCRSwNP patients

The network evidence map suggested that none of the surgical approaches formed a closed loop. PNN + FESS was significantly different from FESS (MD = -3.80; 95% CI = -6.50–-1.09). Their efficiency rankings were PNN + FESS (79.0%), AEN + FESS (53.9%), PNN + BIT (49.4%), FESS (17.6%).

Node-splitting forest graph results

The results of Figure 7 showed that there was no significant difference between the direct and indirect comparison results of the effective rate and symptom scores of different surgical methods in the treatment of AR patients without sinusitis and nasal polyps (P ˃ 0.05).

Figure 7 The node-splitting results, P ˃ 0.05 indicates that there is no statistical difference between direct and indirect comparisons.

Discussion

The surgical treatment of allergic rhinitis has a wide range of clinical applications. Types of operations include PNN, VN, AEN, NSR, FESS, and BIT. According to the patient’s specific conditions, the combination of different surgical methods may also be adopted by clinicians. In order to evaluate the efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of AR, we conducted a network meta-analysis and divided AR patients into two groups: (1) AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps and (2) AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. The effective rates and clinical symptoms and signs score of different surgical options were compared in each group of patients.

We found that the effective rate of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps were ranked as VN + BIT, PNN, PNN + AEN, AEN + BIT, PNN + BIT, AEN + NSR, NSR + BIT, VN, AEN, NSR, BIT; symptom and sign score ranking PNN, VN + NSR, AEN + NSR, PNN + NSR, VN, NSR + BIT, AEN, NSR, PNN + BIT, AEN + BIT, BIT. However, PNN + AEN, AEN + BIT, VN + BIT, PNN + BIT, VN + NSR, and PNN + NSR did not form a closed loop with other surgical methods, and the number of included literatures was one. The accuracy is greatly affected by the included literature, and we believe that the results can only be used as a reference. After excluding the influence of the above several surgical methods, the ranking results of the effective rate and symptom and sign score were similar, all of which were PNN, AEN + NSR, VN, AEN, NSR, and BIT. It can be observed that PNN is the best surgical method for the treatment of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps.

PNN requires us to find and separate the posterior nasal neurovascular bundle at the posterior end of the middle turbinate, and then use bipolar electrocoagulation or plasma knife to coagulate and cut off the posterior nasal nerve.9 The posterior nasal nerve is mainly composed of sensory fibers of the maxillary nerve and post--pterygonomic fibers of the sphenopalatine ganglion, which contain sympathetic and parasympathetic components. PNN simultaneously cuts off the branches of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and sensory nerves of the nasal cavity59: The cutting of parasympathetic nerve fibers can reduce glandular secretion and inhibit vasodilation. Sensory nerve fibers are severed, which can greatly reduce the hypersensitivity of the nasal mucosa. Therefore, PNN can inhibit the secretion of glands caused by parasympathetic nerve excitation, reduce the sensory reflex in the nasal cavity, and simultaneously relieve symptoms such as nasal discharge, nasal itching, sneezing, and nasal congestion.60,61 Studies, such as that of Ahilasamy and Rajendran,59 also supported this view. They also found that the improvement of PNN was mainly reflected in nasal discharge, followed by nasal itching and sneezing.

The VN needs to separate the mucosa until the posterior border of the sphenopalatine foramen, then expose the pterygoid canal, and cut off the pterygoid nerve at the anterior border of the pterygoid canal.8 In our study, although VN treatment of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps had lower symptom and sign score than 9 + PNN, there was no statistical differences. This was in consistent with the research results of Lin and Huang31 (P = 0.218) and Zhang Jian33 (P = 0.662). The main difference between VN and PNN is that VN does not interfere with the sensory nerves in the nasal cavity,59 and is often accompanied by cutting off the sphenopalatine artery, lacrimal gland nerve, and greater palatine nerve, intersecting the PNN, and the possibility of complications of VN was higher. Marshak et al.8 found that the incidences of dry eyes was 23.96%, upper body paresthesia was 8.2%, infection was 5.34%, palatal fistula was 4.85%, and that of epistaxis was 1.75%.Complications of PNN were much lower than that of VN.31 Therefore, compared with VN, PNN had fewer complications under the same curative effect, so it is the preferred surgical method for AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps.

The anterior ethmoid nerve is derived from the ophthalmic nerve,62 which is a mixed nerve of sensory and parasympathetic nerve, and its main branches innervate the anterior nasal cavity and sinus mucosa. The therapeutic mechanism of AEN is similar to that of PNN and VN.63 It achieves its goal by blocking the sensation of abnormal stimulation and inhibiting the secretion of inflammatory mediators.64 Our study found that the efficacy and symptom and sign scores of AEN in the treatment of AR patients without chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps were lower than those of PNN and VN, which may be related to the fact that its innervation of the mucosa is smaller than that of the posterior nasal nerve. It is worth noting that when comparing AEN and PNN, Zhang et al.65 found that the scores of nasal itching and sneezing of AEN were significantly better than those of PNN (P ˂ 0.01), and the scores of nasal discharge and nasal congestion after PNN were significantly better than those of AEN (P ˂ 0.01). However, we did not find similar phenomena in other literature, and more high-quality literature is needed for verification.

The efficacy ranking of BIT was the lowest, and it was statistically different from the multiple surgical methods. The efficacy of BIT in the treatment of AR is worth recognition, and its mechanism is similar to that of NS, mainly through the following aspects66: (1) Reduce nasal airway resistance and relieve the symptoms of nasal congestion caused by it; (2) Reduce the contact area between the nasal mucosa and allergens, and reduce the concentration of allergens in the nasal cavity; (3) Remove some submucosal glands, sensory nerves, and parasympathetic nerves to a certain extent and reduce glandular secretion, and sensory and parasympathetic reflexes. Its efficacy in allergic rhinitis is worthy recognition,67 and its efficacy is mainly reflected in the improvement of nasal congestion.68 Its efficacy is not as good as other surgical methods, mainly because its influence is mainly on the nerve endings distributed on the inferior turbinate mucosa, so it is not as good as PNN, AEN, VN, etc. in improving symptoms such as sneezing and nasal itching.

Recent studies50,69 have shown that NSR + BIT and NSR have no statistical difference in the improvement of nonobstructive allergic symptoms, which was consistent with our results. But after a network meta-analysis, we found that its ranking was higher than NSR. At the same time, this study found that the combined use of the two surgical methods was higher than the single surgery in terms of the efficacy rate and the ranking of symptoms and signs, including PNN + AEN, AEN + BIT, VN + BIT, PNN + BIT, VN + NSR, and PNN + NSR . Taking PNN + BIT as an example, the efficacy of PNN + BIT70 in the treatment of AR is worth recognition, but there is only one literature in this study that directly compares it with BIT, which makes it inaccurate in the final ranking. However, we speculate that the efficacy of PNN + BIT may be higher than that of PNN, because PNN mainly improves nasal discharge, nasal itching, and sneezing, while BIT improves nasal congestion, which can form a certain complementarity. And the study concluded that the combined use of PNN and BIT did not significantly increase the complications.70 But how exactly is it sorted? Is there a statistical difference? More relevant research is needed.

FESS is the surgical modality of choice in AR patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Therefore, in this study, we discuss them separately. This study found that all the combined operation efficiency and symptom and sign score ranking were higher than those of FESS alone, and there was a statistical difference between PNN + FESS71 and FESS. Therefore, when using FESS to treat patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, the combination of PNN and VN13 would be a better choice. Because the included literature is few and no closed loop is formed, more literature support and further discussion are needed as to which surgical method is better. But according to our above findings, FESS + PNN may be a better choice.

The main limitations of this network meta-analysis are as follows: (1) The indicators included in this study are limited. New indicators such as intraoperative bleeding, dry eyes, and paresthesia of the upper palate need to be included. Improve the credibility of the article; (2) Due to limited literature reports, we are temporarily unable to conduct a network meta-analysis on the safety of different surgical methods for AR treatment; (3) Due to the limited quality of literature and research included in this study, and the limited reliability of the final results of a certain indicator, the interpretation of the results should be cautious, and the conclusions drawn still need to be demonstrated by higher-quality randomized controlled trials in future.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

2019KY584 Zhejiang Province Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project.

2023ZL648 Zhejiang Province Medical Science and Technology Project.

REFERENCES

1. Katelaris CH, Lee BW, Potter PC, Maspero JF, Cingi C, Lopatin A, et al. Prevalence and diversity of allergic rhinitis in regions of the world beyond Europe and North America. Clin Exp Allergy. 2012;42(2):186–207. 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03891.x

2. Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Amrol DJ, Baroody FM, Bernstein JA, Craig TJ, et al. Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(4):721–67. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.07.007

3. Zhang K, Li AR, Miglani A, Nguyen SA, Schlosser RJ. Effect of medical therapy in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2022;36(2):269–80. 10.1177/19458924211041438

4. Tie K, Miller C, Zanation AM, Ebert CSJr,. Subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy for adults with allergic rhinitis: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(3):499–508. 10.1002/lary.29586

5. Konno A. Historical, pathophysiological, and therapeutic aspects of vidian neurectomy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2010;10(2):105–12. 10.1007/s11882-010-0093-3

6. Soumya S, Adegboyega G, Elhassan H. Surgical approaches for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review protocol. Int J Surg Protoc. 2021;25(1):178–83. 10.29337/ijsp.160

7. Abdullah B, Singh S. Surgical interventions for inferior turbinate hypertrophy: A comprehensive review of current techniques and technologies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3441. 10.3390/ijerph18073441

8. Marshak T, Yun WK, Hazout C, Sacks R, Harvey RJ. A systematic review of the evidence base for vidian neurectomy in managing rhinitis. J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130 Suppl 4:S7–S28. 10.1017/S0022215116008008

9. Balai E, Gupta KK, Jolly K, Darr A. Posterior nasal nerve-neurectomy for the treatment of rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022. 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.268

10. Cheng L, Chen J, Fu Q, He S, Li H, Liu Z, et al. Chinese Society of Allergy Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2018;10(4):300–53. 10.4168/aair.2018.10.4.300

11. [Chinese guideline for diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis (2022, revision)]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022;57(2):106–29.

12. Li Q, Li X, Liu H. Observe the curative effect of the treatment of allergic rhinitis by cutting the wing tube nerve or stripping the inferior turbinate mucosa. J Hunan Normal Univ Med Sci. 2015;12(03):65–7.

13. Maimaitiaili G, Kahaer K, Tang L, Zhang J. The effect of-vidian neurectomy on pulmonary function in patients with allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Am J Med Sci. 2020;360(2):137–45. 10.1016/j.amjms.2020.04.024

14. Chen Q, Cao H. Analysis of operation treatment of nasal septum cleviatian complicated with allergic rhinitis. J Med Forum. 2014;35(03):18–19+23.

15. Nong Y. Clinical observation of three-line nasal septum correction combined with hypothermic plasma radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of moderate and severe perennial allergic rhinitis with nasal septum deviation. Mod Med Health Res. 2018;2(07):29–30.

16. Jiang T, Gui P, Da M, Wang L, Huang L. Endoscopic submucosal inferior turbinate partial excision combined with anterior ethmoidal nerve block for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. China Foreign Med Treat. 2018;37(21):63–5.

17. Zhang Z, Wang Q, Yuan Y, Long C, Rong Q. A comparative study of two surgical methods for allergic rhinitis with deviation of nasal septum. Hainan Med J. 2019;30(03):320–2.

18. Wang Z, Tang Z, Zhao H, Liu Z, Li D, Li S, et al. Clinical efficacy of endoscopic unilateral vidian main neurectomy under electromagnetic navigation guided on moderate to severe allergic rhinitis. Chinese Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;28(02):93–7.

19. Lin Q, Lin X. Clinical study of preethmoidal nerve block in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Shenzhen J Integr Traditional Chinese Western Med. 2015;25(13):48–9.

20. Cao B, Wang X, Yang P, Zhang H, Zhang L, Liu J, et al. Long-term follow-up observation of plasma technique in treating AR with deviation of nasal septum. China Med Equip. 2020;17(03):113–6.

21. Liu Y, Zhao B, Tian S. Clinical research on recurrent allergic rhinitis by thermosetting both sphenopalatine and anterior ethmoidal nerves with microwave. J Chinese Pract Diagn Ther. 2002;(05): 337–338.

22. Zhou L. Analysis of the operation effect on 112 cases of perennial allergic rhinitis with septal deviation. Jinan University, 2002.

23. Cui T. Efficacy of nasal endoscope combined with plasma ablation in the treatment of nasal septum deviation with allergic rhinitis. Pract Clin J Integr Tradition Chinese West Med. 2021;21(23):59–60+98.

24. Yang W, Guo Q, Zhao H,Dong W, Liu L. Clinical study of endoscopic-assisted posterior nasal neurotomy for allergic rhinitis. Acta Acad Med Weifang. 2019;41(03):179–81.

25. Ren X. A study of the curative effect of endoscopic-assisted posterior nasal neurotomy on patients with refractory allergic rhinitis. Hebei Medical University, 2019.

26. Fang Z, Liu L, Dong W, Gao Y. Clinical observation of nasal endoscopic turbinate volume reduction combined with posterior rhinotomy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis with inferior turbinate hypertrophy. Acta Acad Med Weifang. 2021;43(03):200–2.

27. Li Z, Yu Y, Huang Y. Clinical analysis of endoscopic correction of nasal septum combined with plasma ablation of inferior turbinate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. J Math Med. 2016;29(04):513–4.

28. Liu Z, Du H, Xue Y. The endoscopic nasal septum and inferior turbinate cavernous partial resection in the treatment of variability rhinitis with nasal septum deviation. Chinese J Otorhinolaryngol Integr Med. 2017;25(03):215–9.

29. Liu J. Clinical analysis of nasal branches of anterior ethmoidal nerve blocked by hypothermic plasma radiofrequency ablation under nasal endoscope in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Int Infect Dis. 2019;8(03):59–60.

30. Liu F, Hu J, Xing X, Hang Z, Huang D, Li Shuo. Endoscopic highly selective vidian neurotomy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Chinese J Otorhinolaryngol Skull Base Surg. 2021; 27(04):403–7.

31. Lin Y, Huang Z. Study on the clinical of highly selective branches neurotomy of vidian verve with plasma radiofrequency ablation under endoscopy in treatment of allergic rhinitis. Med Forum. 2021;25(23):3264–6. 10.21608/smj.2020.43926.1199

32. Liang J. To study the effect of endoscopic nasal septum correction combined with inferior turbinate plasma ablation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Health Guide. 2020(42):35.

33. Zhang J. A comparative study of the short-term efficacy of vidian neurectomy and posterior nasal neurectomy under nasal endoscope in the treatment of refractory allergic rhinitis. Anhui Medical University, 2019.

34. Ren Y. Analysis of clinical efficacy of endoscopic pterygotomy combined with nasal septum deviation correction in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Mod Diagn Treat. 2020;31(19):3129–31.

35. Yu S. Nasal endoscopic surgery combined with nasal peripheral nerve block in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. J Med Forum. 2012;33(04):94–5.

36. Yang P, Zhang T, Fan D, Liu T, Shi Q, Wang C. Combined application of nasal septum correction and etbmoidal nerve cauterization for septum deviation complicated with allergic rhinitis. J Clin Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;05 285–7.

37. Zhou L, Wang J. Nasal septum correction and anterior ethmoid neurotomy for perennial allergic rhinitis. Guangdong Med J. 2001;11:1035–6.

38. Gao J. Effects of septal correction combined with low temperature plasma radiofrequency ablation on inflammatory factors, immune function in patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis with septal deviation. Mod Med Health Res Electr J. 2020;4(07):1–4.

39. Zhu Z. The curative effect analysis of nasal septal reconstruction combined with nervus ethmoidalis anterior under radiofrequency ablation for allergic rhinitis patients with septal deviation. Anhui Medical University, 2019.

40. Cheng M, Yang L, Ye H, Hu Z. Clinical observation of septoplasty combined with radiofrequency ablation for nasal septum deviation accompanied with severe perennial allergic rhinitis patients. Chinese J Ophthalmol Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;17(01):43–45+54.

41. Gong X, Zheng P, Peng J. Efficacy observation of nasal septum correction combined with plasma ablation in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis. Guide China Med. 2012;10(32):181–2.

42. Xiong Y, Rowley Q. Effect of septoplasty alone and combined with inferior turbinate low-temperature plasma ablation on the prognosis of patients with allergic rhinitis. J Clin Pathol Res. 2020;40(07):1771–7.

43. Wu X. Analysis of surgical treatment of patients with deviated nasal septum complicated with allergic rhinitis. China Pract Med. 2013; 8(06):78–9.

44. Chang W, Qin J, Zhou H, Li J. Clinical observation of nasal septum deviation correction combined with radiofrequency plasma ablation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Chinese Remed Clin. 2020;20(07):1138–41.

45. Joshi SV, Rawool JS, Shaikh A, Telang RA, Sonawale S, Roy C, et al. Posterior nasal nerve resection—A novel and effective way to surgically treat refractory allergic and vasomotor rhinitis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021: 10.1007/s12070-021-02690-x

46. Ghosh SK, Dutta M, Haldar D. Role of bilateral inferior turbinoplasty as an adjunct to septoplasty in improving nasal obstruction and subjective performance in patients with deviated nasal septum associated with allergic rhinitis: An interventional, prospective study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2021: 10.1177/01455613211015440

47. Qi Y, Liu J, Peng S, Hou S, Zhang M, Wang Z. Efficacy of selective vidian neurectomy for allergic rhinitis combined with chronic rhinosinusitis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2021;83(5):327–34. 10.1159/000512083

48. Li S, Cheng J, Yang J, Zhao Y, Zhu Z, Zhao C, et al. Efficacy of posterior nasal neurectomy for allergic rhinitis combined with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019; 139(10):890–4. 10.1080/00016489.2019.1654132

49. Suzuki M, Yokota M, Ozaki S, Murakami S. The effects of resection of the peripheral branches of the posterior nasal nerves in the inferior turbinate, with special focus on olfactory dys-function. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(12):1046–9. 10.1017/S0022215119002238

50. Kang T, Sung C M, Yang H C. Radiofrequency ablation of turbinates after septoplasty has no effect on allergic rhinitis symptoms other than nasal obstruction. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(11):1257–62. 10.1002/alr.22420

51. Albu S, Trombitas V, Nagy A. Endoscopic microdebrider--assisted inferior turbinoplasty with and without posterior nasal neurectomy. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2014;41(3):273–7. 10.1016/j.anl.2013.10.018

52. He P. Study on the efficacy of wing tube neurectomy and inferior turbinate submucosal dissection under endoscopy in treatment of allergic rhinitis. J Clin Exp Med. 2016;15(23):2370–2.

53. Liu H, Ma R, Wen W. Clinical study on resection of the posterior nasal nerve in refractory hyperreactive rhinopathy. Ningxia Med J. 2014;36(10):882–4.

54. Tan D, Deng Z, Dong Y, et al. Clinical observation on treatment of allergic rhinitis complicated with nasal septum deviation combined with low-temperature plasma radiofrequency. Chinese J Otorhinolaryngol Skull Base Surg. 2010;16(06):446–9.

55. Wang D. Short-and medium-term follow-up study of 78 patients with allergic rhinitis treated by nasal peripheral nerve block combined with endoscopic surgery. J Math Med. 2020;33(03):378–9.

56. Yang Z. Clinical study on the treatment of allergic rhinitis by posterior nasal neurectomy combined with functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Hebei Medical University, 2020.

57. Tan G, Ma Y, Li H, Wang J. Long-term results of bilateral endoscopic vidian neurectomy in the management of moderate to severe persistent allergic rhinitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(5):492–7. 10.1001/archoto.2012.284

58. Wang B, Li J, Liu W, Jiang X. Efficacy evaluation of highly selective pterygotomy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Contemp Med Symposium. 2018;16(04):94–5.

59. Ahilasamy N, Rajendran DK. Endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(9):825–9. 10.1017/S002221511900166X

60. Ogawa T, Takeno S, Ishino T, Hirakawa K. Submucous turbinectomy combined with posterior nasal neurectomy in the management of severe allergic rhinitis: Clinical outcomes and local cytokine changes. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007;34(3):319–26. 10.1016/j.anl.2007.01.008

61. Su WF, Liu SC, Chiu FS, Lee CH. Antegrade transsphenoidal vidian neurectomy: Short-term surgical outcome analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(6):e217–20. 10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3704

62. Takahashi Y, Kinoshita H, Nakano T, Asamoto K, Ichinose A, Kakizaki H. Anatomy of anterior ethmoidal foramen, medial canthal tendon, and lacrimal fossa for transcutaneous anterior ethmoidal nerve block in Japanese individuals. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;30(5):431–3. 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000215

63. Garcia-Paz V, Chamorro-Petronacci C M, Painceira-Villar R, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Sarandeses-Garcia A, et al. Allergic rhinitis improvement after septorhinoplasty in a sample of allergic rhinitis patients with septal deviation: A quasi-experimental study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2022; 140(1):17–23. 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0236.r1.03052021

64. Feng L, Yu L, Ying H, Guo Q, Tan C. The clinical and pathological changes following anterior-ethmoid neurotomy in treating perennial allergic rhinitis with plasma. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 2003;17(2):97–9.

65. Zhang Y, Dai X, Zheng H, Feng Y. A comparison between anterior ethmoidal nerve block and selective pterygoid canal neurotomy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. J Wenzhou Med Univ. 2021;51(03):230–3.

66. Sinno S, Mehta K, Lee ZH, Kidwai S, Saadeh PB, Lee MR. Inferior turbinate hypertrophy in rhinoplasty: Systematic review of surgical techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):419.e–429e. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002433

67. Whelan RL, Shaffer AD, Stapleton AL. Efficacy of inferior turbinate reduction in pediatric patients: A prospective analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(12):1654–62. 10.1002/alr.22849

68. Türk B. Results of radiofrequency ablation of inferior turbinate hypertrophy in allergic and non-allergic rhinitis patients. SiSli Etfal Hastanesi Tip Bulteni /Med Bull Sisli Hospital. 2018. 10.14744/SEMB.2018.77992

69. Garcia JPT, Moura BH, Rodrigues VH, Vivan MA, Azevedo SM, Dolci JEL, et al. Inferior turbinate reduction during rhinoplasty: Is there any effect on rhinitis symptoms?. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol.2022;26(1):e111–e118. 10.1055/s-0041-1726046

70. Sonoda S, Murakami D, Saito Y, Miyamoto Y, Higuchi R, Kikuchi Y, et al. Long-term effectiveness, safety, and quality of life outcomes following endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy with submucosal turbinectomy for the treatment of intractable severe chronic rhinitis. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2021;48(4):636–45. 10.1016/j.anl.2020.12.009

71. Cassano M, Marioni G, Russo L, Cassano P. Sphenopalatine artery ligation with nerve resection in patients with vasomotor rhinitis and polyposis: A prospective, randomized, double--blind investigation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132(5):525–32. 10.3109/00016489.2011.648272