Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Importance

Chronic rhinitis (CR) affects quality of life and often coexists with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a comorbidity that may increase surgical risks. Understanding OSA’s impact on outcomes of minimally invasive nasal surgery is clinically relevant.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive nasal surgery for CR and assess the influence of OSA on postoperative complications and symptom relief.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Single tertiary medical center in Taiwan.

Participants

A total of 325 CR patients underwent nasal surgery between March 2023 and June 2024. Based on sleep study results, patients were stratified into OSA (n = 48) and non-OSA (n = 277) groups.

Exposure or Intervention

Minimally invasive nasal surgery, including radiofrequency inferior turbinate reduction and/or posterior nasal nerve neurolysis. Patients receiving adjunctive procedures (eg, septoplasty, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, and tonsillectomy) were excluded.

Main Outcome Measures

Postoperative complications (eg, epistaxis) within 1 month and symptom relief based on reflective total nasal symptom score and nasal obstruction symptom evaluation.

Results

OSA [odds ratio (OR), 5.105; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.222-21.328; P = .025] and hypertension (OR, 5.809; 95% CI, 1.134-29.744; P = .035) were independent risk factors for major epistaxis. OSA patients had higher overall complication rates (22.9% vs 4.3%, P = .005), epistaxis (18.8% vs 3.6%, P = .012), and major epistaxis (14.6% vs 1.8%, P = .018). Both groups showed significant symptom improvement postoperatively (P < .001).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive nasal surgery improves CR symptoms regardless of OSA. However, OSA and hypertension are linked to increased complication risk and require careful perioperative management.

Relevance

These findings support tailored preoperative assessment and multidisciplinary care to optimize safety and outcomes in CR patients with OSA.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

chronic rhinitis obstructive sleep apnea minimally invasive nasal surgery postoperative complications nasal obstruction symptom evaluation

Key Messages

Minimally invasive nasal surgery significantly improves nasal symptoms in patients with chronic rhinitis, regardless of the presence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Patients with OSA and hypertension have substantially higher risks of postoperative complications, particularly epistaxis, following nasal surgery.

Comprehensive preoperative screening and multidisciplinary perioperative management are essential to balance surgical benefits with safety in high-risk patients.

Summary

This study evaluated the outcomes of minimally invasive nasal surgery in patients with chronic rhinitis (CR), focusing on the impact of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) on postoperative complications and symptom relief. Minimally invasive nasal surgery is effective in alleviating CR symptoms, regardless of OSA status. However, OSA and hypertension significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications, emphasizing the need for comprehensive preoperative evaluation and multidisciplinary perioperative management.

Introduction

Chronic rhinitis (CR) is a prevalent condition, with studies indicating that its global prevalence ranges from ~1% to over 60%, depending on the definition and region, with a median prevalence of around 29.4%.^1,2 Characterized by persistent symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal pruritus, this condition profoundly disrupts patients’ quality of life by impairing sleep, work performance, and social interactions.^3
-5 On a broader scale, CR significantly burdens healthcare systems through frequent medical consultations, medication use, and surgical interventions.^6,7 In addition, it contributes to economic losses due to reduced productivity and absenteeism.⁶ Patients often face emotional distress, including anxiety and depression, resulting from the chronic nature of their symptoms and the associated social limitations.^8
-10

Management of CR ranges from pharmacological therapies, such as intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, to surgical interventions for refractory cases.^11
-13 Surgery is typically reserved for patients unresponsive to prolonged medical treatment. Traditional nasal surgeries, including septoplasty and turbinate reduction, are effective but associated with complications such as epistaxis (4% anterior, 2.4% posterior), infections (~1%), and rare cases of olfactory dysfunction (<0.5%).^7,14
-17 In contrast, minimally invasive procedures, such as radiofrequency inferior turbinate (RFIT) reduction and posterior nasal nerve neurolysis (PNNN), offer shorter recovery times and reduced perioperative risks.¹⁸ These techniques target anatomical and functional abnormalities while preserving mucosal integrity.¹⁸

The impact of minimally invasive nasal surgery on patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains underexplored. Previous studies have primarily examined OSA’s effects on general anesthesia or nasal surgery outcomes without specifically addressing minimally invasive techniques.^19
-21 Notably, the literature lacks focused evaluations of postoperative complications and symptom improvement in OSA patients undergoing these advanced procedures.^19
-21 Our study aims to fill this gap by investigating the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive nasal surgery in OSA patients, identifying independent risk factors for adverse outcomes, and developing strategies to mitigate these risks. By addressing these critical questions, the findings aim to advance evidence-based approaches for optimizing surgical care and outcomes in this potentially high-risk population.

Materials and Methods

Study Population

This retrospective cohort study included patients treated for CR with suspected sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) at Chiayi Christian Hospital between March 2023 and June 2024. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years old and underwent nasal surgery after experiencing symptoms refractory to medical treatment for over 6 months, including the use of nasal sprays and/or oral antihistamines.²² Patients with high-risk SDB were identified using snoring, tiredness, observed apneas, high blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), age, neck circumference, and gender (STOP-Bang) scores, polysomnography (PSG), or home sleep testing (HST).²³ The study was conducted with the approval of the Chia-Yi Christian Hospital Ethics Committee (approval no: CYCH2024022).

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

This retrospective cohort study included patients who had CR refractory to or unsatisfied with medical treatment who underwent nasal surgery for CR between March 2023 and June 2024. The diagnosis of CR is based on the patient’s chief complaint of chronic nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, and sneezing refractory to medical treatment for >6 months with at least 4 weeks of treatment with intranasal corticosteroid spray and/or oral antihistamine with unsatisfactory results. The commonly prescribed ipratropium bromide was not available in the author’s practice countries, so it was not provided or tested. An endoscopy exam to confirm chronic hypertrophic rhinitis with pale turbinate mucosa was mandatory to exclude those with polyps and sinusitis.

Patients diagnosed with OSA were confirmed via PSG or HST.²³ For those who had not been diagnosed with OSA before receiving surgery, PSG or HST was arranged to confirm the diagnosis unless they exhibited a low risk for OSA, defined as STOP-Bang scores ≤5 and BMI <24²⁴ absence of OSA-related symptoms, such as snoring or excessive daytime sleepiness and among individuals who declined sleep studies.

Patients were excluded from the study cohort if they had acute or chronic rhinosinusitis with/without polyps or significant anatomical abnormalities that precluded posterior nasal surgery. For patients with significant septal deviation that obstructed nasal airflow or hindered surgical access and received septoplasty, in cases of grade III to IV adenoid hypertrophy receiving adenoidectomy, and those who received concurrent pharyngeal surgeries, such as uvulopalatopharyngoplasty or transoral robotic surgery, were excluded to minimize the confounding of complication analysis. Patients unable to discontinue anticoagulation therapy for at least 1 week and those with cardiovascular diseases associated with coagulopathy were excluded to minimize perioperative risks and ensure accurate complication assessments. The flowchart of patient selection and outcome evaluation is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of patient selection and outcome evaluation.

Surgical Procedures

All patients underwent minimally invasive nasal surgery performed by a single experienced surgeon, ensuring consistency in procedural techniques. Surgical approaches were tailored to address the specific anatomical and functional abnormalities contributing to nasal obstruction and CR symptoms. Additional procedures were performed as clinically indicated to optimize patient outcomes.

RFIT using CelonLab ENT (Celon AG Medical Instruments, Teltow, Germany), a disposable stylus delivered bipolar radiofrequency (RF) energy at 15 W to the inferior turbinates, served as the primary intervention for all patients, targeting inferior turbinate hypertrophy to alleviate nasal obstruction. Controlled radiofrequency energy was utilized to achieve volume reduction while preserving the integrity of the nasal mucosa. For patients with severe allergic rhinitis or refractory nasal symptoms, PNNN was performed using a 2 W continuous wave laser with the AcuPulse™ CO₂ laser (Lumenis Ltd, Yokne’am Illit, Israel) in conjunction with RFIT. This adjunct procedure targeted sensory nerve pathways to reduce hyperreactivity and improve symptom control.¹⁸

Primary Endpoints and Sleep Evaluation

The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications within 1 month following nasal surgery. Complications were categorized as overall complications (eg, bleeding, wound necrosis, dry eye, rhinosinusitis, and wound infection) and epistaxis-related complications. Epistaxis complications were analyzed as all cases of epistaxis, including those with obvious blood but self-limiting and not requiring medical assistance, as well as major epistaxis, defined as severe bleeding necessitating an emergency room visit and requiring nasal packing with cotton or sponge, or surgical intervention in a hospital setting.

The secondary endpoints included postoperative symptom improvement assessed using the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS, 0-12 scale, with higher the worse of the symptoms) and nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE, 0-20 scale, with higher the worse of the symptoms), evaluated at baseline (preoperatively) and 1 month postoperatively. These endpoints provided a comprehensive evaluation of surgical safety and efficacy.

The severity of sleep disturbance was assessed using the preoperative NOSE scale, which evaluates the patient’s quality of life during the month prior to completing the questionnaire. On the NOSE scale, the fourth question asked patients if they experienced “Trouble sleeping,” with responses rated on a scale from 0 to 4. A score of 0 was defined as “Not a problem,” 1 as “Very mild problem,” 2 as “Moderate problem,” 3 as “Fairly bad problem,” and 4 as “Severe problem,” as specified in the original questionnaire.

Statistical Analysis

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with postoperative complications, including overall complications and epistaxis-related events. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to quantify the strength of associations. For continuous variables such as rTNSS and NOSE scores, paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were utilized to compare preoperative and postoperative scores based on the distribution of the data. Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with and without OSA to evaluate differences in symptom improvement and complication rates. To address potential issues of multicollinearity, variance inflation factor analysis was performed, and no significant collinearity was identified in the multivariate models. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and a P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 18 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The results were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range), as appropriate.

Results

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 325 patients undergoing nasal surgery for CR were included, with 48 patients (14.8%) classified as having OSA and 277 patients (85.2%) as non-OSA. The mean age was similar between groups (41.1 ± 7.7 vs 38.9 ± 10.0 years, P = .147). Males constituted a significantly higher proportion in the OSA group compared to the non-OSA group (91.7% vs 62.5%, P < .001). BMI was also higher in the OSA group (28.9 ± 4.9 vs 25.1 ± 4.3 kg/m², P < .001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Nasal Surgery, Stratified by OSA Diagnosis.

Characteristics	All	Diagnosed with OSA	Others	P value
Case number	325	48	277
Age (mean ± SD)	39.2 ± 9.7	41.1 ± 7.7	38.9 ± 10.0	.147
Sex (male, %)	217 (66.8)	44 (91.7)	173 (62.5)	<.001
BMI (mean ± SD)	25.6 ± 4.6	28.9 ± 4.9	25.1 ± 4.3	<.001
Hypertension (n, %)	13 (4)	10 (20.8)	3 (1.1)	.002
Rhinitis medicamentosa (n, %)	34 (10.5)	4 (8.3)	30 (10.8)	.603
Previous nasal surgery (n, %)	38 (11.7)	6 (12.5)	32 (11.6)	.851
Combine PNNN (n, %)	237 (72.9)	25 (52.1)	212 (76.5)	.002
Initial rTNSS (mean ± SD)	6.3 ± 2.8	6.4 ± 2.8	6.3 ± 2.8	.882
Initial NOSE (mean ± SD)	11.5 ± 4.1	12.0 ± 3.3	11.4 ± 4.2	.366
OSA: moderate-severe (n, %)	38 (11.7)	38 (79.2)

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; NOSE, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PNNN, posterior nasal nerve neurolysis; rTNSS, reflective total nasal symptom score; UPPP, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty.

Hypertension was more prevalent in OSA patients (20.8% vs 1.1%, P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups in the rates of rhinitis medicamentosa (8.3% vs 10.8%, P = .603) or prior nasal surgery (12.5% vs 11.6%, P = .603). The OSA group had a lower rate of PNNN (52.1% vs 76.5%, P = .002). Initial rTNSS and NOSE scores were comparable between groups (6.4 ± 2.8 vs 6.3 ± 2.8, P = .882; 12.0 ± 3.3 vs 11.4 ± 4.2, P = .366).

Distribution of sleep disturbance severity between OSA and non-OSA groups in Figure 2. In the OSA group, a higher proportion of patients experienced “fairly bad” or “severe” sleep disturbances compared to the non-OSA group (58.3% vs 40.1%, P = .018). This finding underscores the heightened baseline burden of sleep-related symptoms among OSA patients, further emphasizing the importance of targeted interventions in this population.

Figure 2.

Sleep disturbance severity distribution between OSA and non-OSA groups.

Postoperative Complications

The overall complication rate within 1 month following nasal surgery was significantly higher in the OSA group compared to the non-OSA group (22.9% vs 4.3%, P = .005; Table 2). Epistaxis was the most common complication, with 18.8% of patients in the OSA group experiencing at least 1 event, compared to 3.6% in the non-OSA group (P = .012). Major epistaxis, defined as bleeding requiring emergency department evaluation or surgical intervention, was notably more frequent in the OSA group (14.6% vs 1.8%, P < .018). Among the 12 major epistaxis cases, 11 were anterior nasal bleeds, which required only local treatment and nasal sponge packing for 2 to 3 days. The only case of posterior nasal bleeding occurred in the PNNN group, presenting as intermittent bleeding 2 weeks after the procedure. To prevent major posterior bleeding, the patient underwent prophylactic sphenopalatine artery ligation under general anesthesia.

Table 2.

Postoperative Complications Within 1 Month Following Nasal Surgery for Chronic Rhinitis, Stratified by OSA Diagnosis.

Complication type	All	Diagnosed with OSA	Not diagnosed with OSA	P value
Complication
Major epistaxis^a: anterior	11	6	5
Major epistaxis^a: posterior^b	1	1	0
Mild epistaxis	7	2	5
Wound necrosis	1	0	1
Dry eye^b	1	0	1
Rhinosinusitis	1	1	0
Wound infection	1	1	0
All complications (n, %)	23 (7.1)	11 (22.9)	12 (4.3)	.005
All epistaxis (n, %)	19 (5.8)	9 (18.8)	10 (3.6)	.012
Major epistaxis (n, %)	12 (3.7)	7 (14.6)	5 (1.8)	.018

Abbreviations: n, number of patients/events; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.

Major epistaxis is defined as bleeding requiring emergency department evaluation or surgical intervention.

Dry eye and posterior nasal epistaxis are complications specifically associated with the posterior nasal nerve neurolysis procedure.

Other complications, such as wound necrosis, rhinosinusitis, wound infection, and dry eye, were infrequent, with each having only 1 case recorded in the whole cohort. The wound infection was observed exclusively in 2.1% of OSA patients compared to wound necrosis exclusively in 0.4% of non-OSA patients, while dry eye, associated with PNNN, was reported exclusively in the non-OSA group. These findings highlight the increased risk of postoperative complications among patients with OSA undergoing nasal surgery.

Independent Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications

Univariate analysis was performed, showing BMI, hypertension, OSA, OSA—moderate to severe, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) were significant risk factors for all complications and epistaxis-related complications (Table 3). Multivariate analysis identified OSA as a significant independent predictor of overall postoperative complications (OR, 4.966; 95% CI, 1.807-13.648; P = .002), all epistaxis-related complications (OR, 3.984; 95% CI, 1.301-12.203; P = .016) and major epistaxis-related complications (OR, 5.105; 95% CI, 1.222-21.328; P = .025; Table 4). Hypertension was significantly associated with major epistaxis-related complications (OR, 5.809, 95% CI, 1.134-29.744; P = .035). However, BMI was not found to be an independent risk factor for any of the complication categories analyzed (P > .05). These findings underscore the importance of OSA and hypertension as critical contributors to postoperative risks in patients undergoing nasal surgery for CR.

Table 3.

Univariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Overall and Epistaxis-Related Complications in Patients Undergoing Nasal Surgery.

Variable	All complications (n = 23)		All epistaxis-related complications (n = 19)		Major epistaxis-related complications (n = 12)
Variable	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Age (mean ± SD)	0.998 (0.955-1.043)	.923	0.998 (0.952-1.048)	.95	1.012 (0.956-1.072)	.667
Sex (male, %)	1.445 (0.553-3.777)	.453	1.931 (0.625-5.965)	.253	1.514 (0.402-5.712)	.54
BMI (mean ± SD)	1.091 (1.003-1.187)	.042	1.108 (1.012-1.213)	.027	1.123 (1.007-1.254)	.038
Initial rTNSS (mean ± SD)	1.086 (0.935-1.261)	.279	1.128 (0.958-1.329)	.149	1.016 (0.828-1.245)	.882
Initial NOSE (mean ± SD)	1.006 (0.906-1.117)	.905	0.99 (0.883-1.11)	.866	0.966 (0.838-1.113)	.632
Hypertension (n, %)	6.854 (1.933-24.305)	.003	8.8 (2.43-31.871)	.001	16.889 (4.287-66.539)	<.001
OSA	6.565 (2.703-15.948)	<.001	6.162 (2.356-16.111)	<.001	9.288 (2.815-30.643)	<.001
OSA: moderate-severe (n, %)	4.836 (1.894-12.345)	.001	5.175 (1.897-14.114)	.001	8.781 (2.674-28.842)	<.001
AHI	1.039 (1.019-1.059)	<.001	1.041 (1.021-1.062)	<.001	1.046 (1.023-1.069)	<.001
Rhinitis medicamentosa (n, %)	0.371 (0.048-2.839)	.339	0.46 (0.059-3.555)	.456	0	.998
Combine PNNN (n, %)	1.364 (0.491-3.793)	.551	1.419 (0.458-4.398)	.544	1.894 (0.407-8.821)	.416
Previous nasal surgery (n, %)	0.326 (0.043-2.487)	.279	0.404 (0.052-3.115)	.384	0	.998

Abbreviations: AHI, apnea-hypopnea index; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; n, number; NOSE, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation; OR, odds ratio; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; PNNN, posterior nasal nerve neurolysis; rTNSS, reflective total nasal symptom score; UPPP, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty.

Table 4.

Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Overall and Epistaxis-Related Complications in Patients Undergoing Nasal Surgery.

	All complications		All epistaxis-related complications (n = 19)		Major epistaxis-related complications (n = 12)
Variable	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
BMI	1.023 (0.929-1.128)	.64	1.039 (0.936-1.153)	.473	1.019 (0.894-1.162)	.773
Hypertension	2.279 (0.532-9.765)	.267	3.094 (0.691-13.863)	.14	5.809 (1.134-29.744)	.035
OSA	4.966 (1.807-13.648)	.002	3.984 (1.301-12.203)	.016	5.105 (1.222-21.328)	.025

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; n, number; OR, odds ratio; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea.

Symptom Improvement Post-Surgery

As illustrated in Figure 3, significant improvements were observed in both the rTNSS and NOSE scores at 1 month postoperatively. In the overall cohort (n = 325), the rTNSS score (6.3 ± 2.8 vs 2.5 ± 2.0, P < .001) and all subscores, including congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing, demonstrated significant reductions compared to preoperative values. Similarly, the NOSE score (11.5 ± 4.1 vs 2.7 ± 3.7, P < .001) and all subscores—obstruction, stuffiness, trouble breathing, trouble sleeping, and trouble exercising—improved significantly. Comparison of the 1-month changes in rTNSS and NOSE scores by OSA status showed significant improvements (P < .001) in all subscores for the entire study cohort (n = 325) at 1 month postoperatively (1M) compared to preoperative values. However, no significant differences in score changes were observed when comparing OSA and non-OSA patients across all subscores (P > .05). Among patients with fairly bad to severe sleep disturbances (n = 139), significant improvements (P < .001) in all subscores were also observed at 1M compared to preoperative values. However, patients diagnosed with OSA showed significantly smaller improvements in the first 4 NOSE subscores (nasal obstruction and stuffiness, P < .05; trouble breathing and trouble sleeping, P < .01).

Figure 3.

Changes in rTNSS and NOSE scores following nasal surgery. (a) Comparison of changes in rTNSS subscores between patients diagnosed with OSA and those not diagnosed with OSA. (b) Comparison of changes in NOSE subscores between patients diagnosed with OSA and those not diagnosed with OSA. NOSE, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation; rTNSS, reflective total nasal symptom score.

Discussion

Nasal surgery has been widely explored as a treatment for patients with CR and as an adjunctive surgery for treating OSA, aiming to alleviate nasal obstruction and improve sleep-related symptoms.^25,26 Previous studies have shown that procedures such as septoplasty and turbinate reduction can enhance nasal airflow and reduce subjective symptoms like snoring and daytime sleepiness.^7,27,28 However, the impact of nasal surgery on objective measures, such as the AHI, remains inconsistent, with some research indicating minimal changes in AHI post-surgery.²⁹ These findings suggest that while nasal surgery may improve patient-reported outcomes, its effect on the severity of OSA may be limited.^20,29 Our study contributes to this body of knowledge by examining the safety and efficacy of nasal surgery in CR patients with and without OSA. Among 325 patients, those with OSA (n = 48) had a significantly higher incidence of complications than non-OSA patients (22.9% vs 4.3%, P = .005; Table 2). Epistaxis was the most common complication, occurring in 18.8% of OSA patients versus 3.6% of non-OSA patients (P = .012). Major epistaxis was notably more prevalent in the OSA group (14.6% vs 1.8%, P = .018). These findings highlight the elevated surgical risks associated with OSA and the need for meticulous perioperative care. Despite increased complication risks, nasal surgery led to substantial symptom improvement in both groups (Figure 3). At 1 month postoperatively, rTNSS scores significantly decreased across all subscores (P < .001), confirming the procedure’s efficacy in relieving nasal obstruction and related symptoms, irrespective of OSA status (Figure 3). Clinically, our findings emphasize the dual importance of symptom relief and surgical safety, particularly in high-risk populations. Identifying OSA and hypertension as independent risk factors (Table 4) reinforces the need for a multidisciplinary approach involving otolaryngologists and sleep specialists to optimize outcomes.

Our study represents the first cohort to specifically investigate the association between OSA and postoperative complications following minimally invasive nasal surgery for CR, distinguishing it from prior research focused on either the general surgical risks of OSA or the efficacy of traditional nasal surgeries.^19
-21 While earlier studies have identified OSA as a risk factor for perioperative complications in diverse surgical settings, few have addressed its direct impact on minimally invasive nasal procedures.^30,31 Our findings highlight the significantly elevated risk of postoperative complications (Tables 3 and 4), particularly epistaxis, in OSA patients compared to non-OSA individuals, filling a critical gap in the literature.^19
-21,30,31 Unlike prior investigations that broadly examined surgical outcomes,^19
-21,30,31 our study concentrated on CR patients undergoing minimally invasive techniques. The use of these advanced techniques likely contributed to the overall favorable safety profile, even among high-risk OSA patients (Table 2). Moreover, the multivariate analysis confirmed OSA and hypertension as independent risk factors for complications, which extends beyond the observations of previous studies by emphasizing the compounded perioperative risks in this specific population.^19
-21,30,31 In addition to assessing risks, our study uniquely demonstrated that both OSA and non-OSA groups experienced substantial symptom improvement postoperatively (Figure 3). This dual emphasis on risk and benefit provides a more balanced perspective, underscoring the clinical value of these procedures despite the heightened complication risk in OSA patients. These findings advocate for meticulous perioperative management while supporting the continued use of minimally invasive techniques to achieve meaningful symptom relief in CR, even among OSA patients.

Our study underscores the critical need for enhanced clinical strategies when managing patients with CR undergoing nasal surgery, particularly those with OSA. Routine preoperative screening for OSA, employing tools such as PSG or HST, should be integrated into surgical workflows to identify high-risk individuals and tailor perioperative care. Individualized risk assessments and informed consent processes must highlight the increased likelihood of postoperative complications, including epistaxis, in OSA patients. For this population, optimized perioperative strategies, such as preoperative continuous positive airway pressure therapy, rigorous intraoperative bleeding control, and vigilant postoperative monitoring, are essential. Additionally, a multidisciplinary approach, involving otolaryngologists and sleep specialists, is vital to address the complex needs of these patients comprehensively. Our findings emphasize the importance of revising clinical guidelines to incorporate routine OSA screening and management as standard practice, ensuring improved surgical safety and symptom relief while addressing the unique risks associated with OSA.

Our study stands out for its rigorous design, innovative focus, and significant clinical implications. By employing a clearly defined retrospective cohort design with a large sample size (n = 325), we systematically compared outcomes between OSA (n = 48) and non-OSA (n = 277) patients, making it the first to directly explore the relationship between OSA and postoperative complications in CR surgery. Unlike previous studies that either generalized OSA’s surgical risks or focused on nasal surgery outcomes without stratifying by OSA status, our research provides targeted insights into the higher complication rates, particularly epistaxis, in OSA patients.^13,19
-21 All surgeries in our study were performed by a single experienced surgeon, minimizing variability in surgical technique and enhancing the consistency of results. In addition, this is the first study to explicitly compare complication rates between OSA and non-OSA patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures, rather than traditional nasal surgeries. The findings revealed a significantly higher risk of complications in OSA patients. The use of validated tools, such as rTNSS and NOSE scores, ensures reliable symptom assessment, while multivariable analyses definitively identified OSA and hypertension as independent risk factors for complications specific to minimally invasive nasal surgery, a distinction not previously established in the literature.^31,32

Previous studies on minimally invasive nasal surgery for CR have shown low complication rates. For instance, posterior nasal neurectomy reported only 0.3% postoperative epistaxis managed endoscopically, with no major complications, while inferior turbinate radiofrequency reduction showed minimal adverse events in long-term follow-up.^33,34 Similarly, our cohort had a low overall complication rate (7.1%) and only 1 bleeding-related readmission (0.3%). However, in patients with both OSA and hypertension, the epistaxis rate rose markedly to 22.9%, indicating that these comorbidities may predispose to early postoperative bleeding even in low-risk procedures. This finding supports the need for individualized perioperative strategies in high-risk CR patients.

While our study provides valuable insights into the relationship between OSA and postoperative outcomes in CR patients undergoing minimally invasive nasal surgery, it has several limitations. As a retrospective cohort study from a single institution, selection bias and unmeasured confounders may limit generalizability. Although all surgeries were performed by a single experienced surgeon to standardize techniques, this may not reflect real-world variability. The differentiation of allergic rhinitis and non-allergic rhinitis was not regularly tested and reported since there was already abundant evidence that proved surgical intervention was effective for both allergic and non-allergic CR. While validated tools such as rTNSS and NOSE scores assessed symptom improvement, they remain subjective and may not fully capture objective physiological changes. The 1-month follow-up may underestimate late-onset complications or long-term efficacy. In addition, excluding patients unable to discontinue anticoagulation or with significant anatomical abnormalities may limit applicability to higher-risk groups. Finally, despite multivariable analyses, residual confounding from unmeasured variables, such as socioeconomic status or unassessed comorbidities, cannot be ruled out. Nonetheless, this study provides critical evidence linking OSA and hypertension to increased surgical risks, emphasizing the need for personalized perioperative management.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the impact of OSA on minimally invasive nasal surgery outcomes in CR patients, emphasizing the need for enhanced screening, individualized risk assessment, and tailored perioperative management. A multidisciplinary approach, addressing OSA and hypertension while strengthening patient education, can improve surgical safety, effectiveness, and patient-centered care.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Chien-Yu Huang: contributed to study design,data collection,and manuscript preparation. Reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Chia-Hao Chang: contributed to data collection,statistical analysis,and critical review of the manuscript. Approved the final manuscript for publication. Yi-Li Hwang: participated in data analysis,interpretation of results,and critical revision of the manuscript. Reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Ying-Shuo Hsu: played a key role in conceptualizing the study,supervising data collection,and drafting the manuscript. Provided substantial intellectual contributions and approved the final version of the manuscript. Szu-Yuan Wu: designed the study,supervised all stages of research,and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Served as the senior author and guarantor of the study. All authors approved the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: We thank Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital Research Program (R113-056) for supporting this research.

Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted with the approval of the Chia-Yi Christian Hospital Ethics Committee (approval no: CYCH2024022).

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the author,Dr Chien-Yu Huang,upon reasonable request. Due to ethical and privacy considerations,access to individual-level data is restricted to protect patient confidentiality. Aggregated data and additional materials related to the study are available to researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

ORCID iDs

Chien-Yu Huang

Szu-Yuan Wu

References

Settipane

RA.

Rhinitis: a dose of epidemiological reality. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2003;24(3):147-154.

Savoure

Bousquet

Jaakkola

JJK

Jaakkola

Jacquemin

Nadif

Worldwide prevalence of rhinitis in adults: a review of definitions and temporal evolution. Clin Transl Allergy. 2022;12(3):e12130. doi:10.1002/clt2.12130

Hellings

Klimek

Cingi

, et al. Non-allergic rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Allergy. 2017;72(11):1657-1665. doi:10.1111/all.13200

Powe

Huskisson

Carney

Jenkins

Jones

NS.

Evidence for an inflammatory pathophysiology in idiopathic rhinitis. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001;31(6):864-872. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01106.x

Blom

Godthelp

Fokkens

, et al. Mast cells, eosinophils and IgE-positive cells in the nasal mucosa of patients with vasomotor rhinitis. An immunohistochemical study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1995;252(suppl 1):S33-S39. doi:10.1007/BF02484432

Wise

Hamzavi-Abedi

Hannikainen

, et al. Rhinitis disease burden and the impact of social determinants of health. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024;12(6):1449-1461.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2024.03.043

Park

Kim

Jun

, et al. Long-term outcomes of turbinate surgery in patients with allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;149(1):15-23. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2022.3567

Wang

Xiao

Chen

Cumulative evidence for association of rhinitis and depression. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2021;17(1):111. doi:10.1186/s13223-021-00615-5

Munoz-Cano

Ribo

Araujo

Giralt

Sanchez-Lopez

Valero

Severity of allergic rhinitis impacts sleep and anxiety: results from a large Spanish cohort. Clin Transl Allergy. 2018;8:23. doi:10.1186/s13601-018-0212-0

10.

El Hennawi Del

Ahmed

Farid

AM.

Psychological stress and its relationship with persistent allergic rhinitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(4):899-904. doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3641-6

11.

Sousa-Pinto

Vieira

Brozek

, et al. Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024;154(2):340-354. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2024.04.016

12.

Torres

Gil-Mata

Bognanni

, et al. Intranasal versus oral treatments for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024;12(12):3404-3418. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2024.09.001

13.

Patel

Kern

Bernstein

Hae-Sim

Peters

AT.

Current and future treatments of rhinitis and sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(5):1522-1531. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.01.031

14.

Desai

Sampieri

Namavarian

Lee

JM.

Cryoablation for the treatment of chronic rhinitis: a systematic review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;52(1):37. doi:10.1186/s40463-023-00645-6

15.

Kotisalmi

Hytonen

Makitie

Lilja

Septoplasty with and without additional sinonasal surgery: postoperative sequelae and the use of prophylactic antibiotics. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(7):3449-3458. doi:10.1007/s00405-021-07113-9

16.

Shin

Jang

YJ.

Factors affecting the complication rate of septoplasty: analysis of 1,506 consecutive cases of single surgeon. Facial Plast Surg. 2023;39(4):387-392. doi:10.1055/a-1990-2818

17.

Joshi

Riley

Kacker

Complication rates following septoplasty with inferior turbinate reduction. Ochsner J. 2019;19(4):353-356. doi:10.31486/toj.19.0002

18.

Huang

Liao

Kang

Lin

Hsieh

JW.

Chronic rhinitis surgery: association between preoperative severity and response rate. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2025;2015:19458924241308990. doi:10.1177/19458924241308990

19.

Cozowicz

Memtsoudis

SG.

Perioperative management of the patient with obstructive sleep apnea: a narrative review. Anesth Analg. 2021;132(5):1231-1243. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005444

20.

Schoustra

van Maanen

den Haan

Ravesloot

MJL

de Vries

The role of isolated nasal surgery in obstructive sleep apnea therapy—a systematic review. Brain Sci. 2022;12(11):1446. doi:10.3390/brainsci12111446

21.

MacKay

Carney

Catcheside

, et al. Effect of multilevel upper airway surgery vs medical management on the apnea-hypopnea index and patient-reported daytime sleepiness among patients with moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnea: the SAMS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(12):1168-1179. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14265

22.

Huang

Sun

Zhou

Maximal medical therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis: a survey of Chinese otolaryngologists. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;99(3):159-164. doi:10.1177/0145561319852588

23.

Goyal

Johnson

Obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis and management. Mo Med. 2017;114(2):120-124.

24.

Oshita

Ito

Senoo

Funaishi

Mitama

Okusaki

The STOP-Bang test is useful for predicting the severity of obstructive sleep apnea. JMA J. 2020;3(4):347-352. doi:10.31662/jmaj.2020-0002

25.

Park

Cho

Jung

, et al. Clinical practice guideline: clinical efficacy of nasal surgery in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;16(3):201-216. doi:10.21053/ceo.2022.01361

26.

Kim

Jung

Lee

Park

Mun

Cho

KS.

Relationship between allergic rhinitis and nasal surgery success in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021;42(6):103079. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103079

27.

Alanin

Hopkins

Effect of functional endoscopic sinus surgery on outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020;20(7):27. doi:10.1007/s11882-020-00932-6

28.

Dekeyser

Huart

Hummel

Hox

Olfactory loss in rhinosinusitis: mechanisms of loss and recovery. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(8):4460. doi:10.3390/ijms25084460

29.

Zhao

, et al. Apnea-hypopnea index decreased significantly after nasal surgery for obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96(5):e6008. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000006008

30.

Chan

MTV

Wang

Seet

, et al. Association of unrecognized obstructive sleep apnea with postoperative cardiovascular events in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2019;321(18):1788-1798. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.4783

31.

Vasu

Grewal

Doghramji

Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and perioperative complications: a systematic review of the literature. J Clin Sleep Med. 2012;8(2):199-207. doi:10.5664/jcsm.1784

32.

Min

Kang

Choi

Kim

KS.

Association between hypertension and epistaxis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157(6):921-927. doi:10.1177/0194599817721445

33.

De Corso

Bastanza

Di Donfrancesco

, et al. Radiofrequency volumetric inferior turbinate reduction: long-term clinical results (Riduzione volumetrica dei turbinati inferiori con radiofrequenze: risultati clinici a lungo termine). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016;36(3):199-205. doi:10.14639/0392-100X-964

34.

Hua

Wang

Zhao

Wang

Qiu

Fang

The long-term outcomes of posterior nasal neurectomy with or without pharyngeal neurectomy in patients with allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;88(suppl 1):S147-S155. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.05.006

Impact of Obstructive Sleep Apnea on Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Nasal Surgery for Chronic Rhinitis

Abstract

Importance

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Exposure or Intervention

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusion

Relevance

Keywords

Key Messages

Summary

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Study Population

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

Surgical Procedures

Primary Endpoints and Sleep Evaluation

Statistical Analysis

Results

Baseline Characteristics

Postoperative Complications

Independent Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications

Symptom Improvement Post-Surgery

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Considerations

Data Availability Statement

ORCID iDs

References