Translate 
Abstract
Previous studies synthesizing published data on nasal septal perforation (NSP) repair outcomes have cited the lack of standardization in evaluation and data reporting. The heterogeneity of this literature base limits the quality of available evidence and precludes intercomparison. The aim of this study is to quantitatively characterize trends in NSP evaluation and reporting and identify areas for improvement. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. A comprehensive review of the literature published from 2012 through 2024 investigating NSP repair techniques was conducted, and perforation evaluation and outcome reporting were characterized and compared between contemporary and older cohorts. Outcomes of NSP repair are increasingly studied. The heterogeneity of current literature concerning the evaluation of perforations and the reporting of outcomes precludes high-quality comparative analyses of outcomes across separate studies. This review demonstrated a lack of progress towards greater standardization over the last 12 years. There remains room for improvement in regard to the evaluation and reporting of etiology, defect size, symptomatology, and objective outcome of repair, allowing for adequate duration of follow-up. There are many inconsistencies in the collection, organization, and analysis of data implicated in investigations of NSP repair outcomes. The development and agreement upon consensus practice guidelines would engender greater standardization among the evaluation and assessment of treatment outcomes. Based on this review and our institutional experiences, we propose specific measures that would facilitate higher-quality future research and advance the practice of perforation management.
Published Version
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
