Safety and Efficacy of Day-Case Versus Inpatient Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
This study aimed to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy, and economic benefits of day-case endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in a Chinese population, and to compare these indicators between the day-surgery and traditional inpatient models.
This retrospective cohort study enrolled 80 CRS patients who underwent ESS. Patients were divided into a day-case group (n = 36) and an inpatient group (n = 44). Furthermore, perioperative indicators, hospitalization costs, follow-up costs, subjective symptoms (visual analogue scale [VAS] scores), and objective endoscopic findings (Lund-Kennedy scores) were assessed between the two groups over four weeks post-discharge period.
The day-surgery group demonstrated significantly shorter preoperative waiting times (2.97 ± 0.96 hours vs 18.03 ± 4.47 hours, p < 0.001) and hospital stays (0.52 ± 0.18 days vs 3.64 ± 0.90 days, p < 0.001) compared with the inpatient group. Similarly, hospitalization costs were also lower in the day-case group (11,861.56 ± 3024.71 Yuan vs 29,061.75 ± 4603.45 Yuan, p < 0.001, 1 USD = 7.2 CNY). There were no significant differences in surgical duration, Wong-Baker Faces Pain Score, follow-up costs, or the rate of postoperative adverse events between the two groups. Both groups showed significant and comparable improvements in VAS and Lund-Kennedy scores from baseline through four weeks post-discharge.
Day-case endoscopic sinus surgery is comparable to inpatient surgery in terms of short-term safety and clinical improvement, while significantly shortening hospital stay and reducing hospitalization costs. However, given that this study is a retrospective study and may have selection bias, the above results should still be interpreted with caution.
This retrospective cohort study enrolled 80 CRS patients who underwent ESS. Patients were divided into a day-case group (n = 36) and an inpatient group (n = 44). Furthermore, perioperative indicators, hospitalization costs, follow-up costs, subjective symptoms (visual analogue scale [VAS] scores), and objective endoscopic findings (Lund-Kennedy scores) were assessed between the two groups over four weeks post-discharge period.
The day-surgery group demonstrated significantly shorter preoperative waiting times (2.97 ± 0.96 hours vs 18.03 ± 4.47 hours, p < 0.001) and hospital stays (0.52 ± 0.18 days vs 3.64 ± 0.90 days, p < 0.001) compared with the inpatient group. Similarly, hospitalization costs were also lower in the day-case group (11,861.56 ± 3024.71 Yuan vs 29,061.75 ± 4603.45 Yuan, p < 0.001, 1 USD = 7.2 CNY). There were no significant differences in surgical duration, Wong-Baker Faces Pain Score, follow-up costs, or the rate of postoperative adverse events between the two groups. Both groups showed significant and comparable improvements in VAS and Lund-Kennedy scores from baseline through four weeks post-discharge.
Day-case endoscopic sinus surgery is comparable to inpatient surgery in terms of short-term safety and clinical improvement, while significantly shortening hospital stay and reducing hospitalization costs. However, given that this study is a retrospective study and may have selection bias, the above results should still be interpreted with caution.