Quality of life assessment
Only two of the studies included in this review assessed the quality of
life of patients since similar instruments or measures were not used;
thus, the data could not be combined into a meta-analysis. Table 3
summarizes the qualitative synthesis of the included studies.
Javer et al. compared the quality of life of patients with CRS who
underwent ESS with and without the aid of IGS using a validated quality
of life tool, RSOM-31. The patients completed the form preoperatively
and six months postoperatively. The IGS demonstrated a statistically
significant improvement in all 31 questions, while the ESS group
demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in 13 of the 31
questions.27
Strauss et al. evaluated the subjective findings of patients who
underwent ESS with and without IGS six months postoperatively. In the
IGS group, 73% (65/89) of the patients referred to a general sense of
well-being, compared to 69% (49/71) in the ESS group. Persistent
complaints were reported by 16% (14/89) from the IGS and 30% (21/71)
of the ESS group. Moreover, 96% of patients who underwent the procedure
with IGS stated that they would undergo surgery again, compared to 85%
of the patients operated without IGS.28