Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2025; 13(5): 95130
Published online Feb 16, 2025. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v13.i5.95130
Table 1 Comparison of total effective rate between two groups of patients
Group
n
Cured
Improved
Ineffective
Effective rate
Control6327261084.13%
Observation1376862794.89%
χ26.4556.165
P value0.0400.013
Table 2 Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score comparison (mean ± SD, points)
Group
n
Treatment
3 mo after treatment
6 mo after treatment
Control635.84 ± 2.132.42 ± 1.511.98 ± 0.84
Observation1375.73 ± 2.051.57 ± 0.781.35 ± 0.71
t0.3485.2495.495
P value0.728< 0.01< 0.01
Table 3 Paranasal sinus Lund-Mackay score comparison (mean ± SD, points)
Group
n
Before treatment
3 mo after treatment
6 mo after treatment
Control634.93 ± 2.322.16 ± 1.841.82 ± 0.91
Observation1374.75 ± 2.361.54 ± 0.721.37 ± 0.64
t0.5043.4224.02
P value0.613< 0.01< 0.01
Table 4 Comparison of rates of complications and recurrence between two groups
Group
n
Maxillary tooth ache
Facial numbness
Facial swelling
Dry and scabbed nasal cavity
Nasal mucosa thickening
Rate of complications
Recurrence
rate
Control63401109.52%12.69%
Observation137314016.56%2.91%
χ20.5926.650
P value0.4410.009