Surgical management of chronic rhinosinusitis: a narrative review

Yung Jin Jeon

doi:10.5124/jkma.25.0066

J Korean Med Assoc > Volume 68(7); 2025 > Article

Jeon: Surgical management of chronic rhinosinusitis: a narrative review

Focused Issue of This Month

Recent Advanced in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

J Korean Med Assoc 2025; 68(7): 417-426.

Published online: July 10, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.25.0066

Surgical management of chronic rhinosinusitis: a narrative review

Yung Jin Jeon, MD, PhD^1,²

¹Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea

²Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea

Corresponding author: Yung Jin Jeon E-mail: myjin8704@gnu.ac.kr

Received April 29, 2025 Accepted June 25, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common, persistent inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses that significantly diminishes patients' quality of life. Although medical therapy remains the initial treatment of choice, surgical intervention is frequently required for individuals who do not respond adequately to conservative management. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of surgical treatments for CRS, highlighting contemporary practices, indications, clinical efficacy, and outcomes.
Current Concepts: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has become the standard surgical procedure for CRS, focusing on the removal of pathological lesions and the restoration of normal sinus drainage and ventilation. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques have improved both the precision and safety of ESS. A thorough understanding of sinonasal anatomy, together with meticulous preoperative planning, is essential to minimize complications and ensure successful outcomes. Postoperative care, including nasal irrigation and topical corticosteroids, plays a critical role in promoting mucosal healing and preventing disease recurrence.
Discussion and Conclusion: Surgical treatment for CRS continues to evolve, providing significant symptom relief for patients who are unresponsive to medical therapy. Optimal outcomes depend on individualized surgical planning that takes into account symptom severity, radiologic findings, and patient comorbidities. As our understanding of CRS shifts toward recognizing it as an immune-mediated disease, rather than a purely infectious or obstructive process, the role of surgery has changed accordingly. Ongoing research into minimally invasive techniques, long-term outcomes, and adjunctive therapies is likely to further refine future treatment strategies. A multidisciplinary approach remains vital for improving the overall management of CRS.

Keywords: Rhinosinusitis; Nasal polyps; Endoscopic sinus surgery

Introduction

1. Background

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the paranasal sinus mucosa, with symptom-based prevalence in the general population ranging from 5.5% to 28% [1]. The global prevalence of CRS is 8.71%, with an increasing trend from 1980 to 2020 [2]. In Korea, the prevalence has been reported to range from 3.70% to 8.4% [3]. CRS is characterized by persistent nasal symptoms—including nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, facial pain or pressure, and postnasal drip—that last for more than 12 weeks. It is recognized as a significant health issue, given the marked impairment in quality of life and the associated social and economic burdens [4].

CRS is now understood as a chronic inflammatory disease resulting from dysregulation of the sinonasal immune system in response to various environmental factors, rather than simply a microbial infection. Management typically begins with medical therapy, such as antibiotics, intranasal corticosteroid sprays, and saline irrigation. Nevertheless, some patients continue to experience persistent or worsening symptoms despite optimal medical treatment.

With the widespread adoption of endoscopic surgical techniques in the late 20th century, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has served as the standard surgical intervention for CRS since the 1980s [5]. Previously, surgery was viewed as a last resort after the failure of medical therapy. However, advances in the understanding of CRS pathophysiology have led to its recognition as a chronic disease requiring ongoing, multidisciplinary management, prompting a re-evaluation of the role of surgery. ESS is now regarded not only as a means of anatomical correction but also as a key therapeutic approach for facilitating the effective delivery of topical agents and restoring mucociliary function.

2. Objectives

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current perspectives on the surgical treatment of CRS and to discuss the efficacy and clinical application of various surgical techniques.

Pathophysiology of CRS and the Role of Surgical Treatment

Historically, CRS was viewed primarily as an infectious disease, with antibiotic therapy as the mainstay of treatment and a focus on eradicating pathogenic organisms. Oral antibiotics were commonly prescribed, but surgical intervention was considered when symptoms persisted or worsened despite medical therapy. It has been reported that up to 50% of patients with CRS eventually require surgical treatment [6].

Traditional surgical approaches were aimed at relieving obstruction of the ostiomeatal unit (OMU) to restore adequate drainage and ventilation. This strategy was based on the concept that impaired mucociliary clearance in the sinus mucosa leads to localized hypoxia within obstructed sinuses, resulting in epithelial barrier dysfunction and diminished defenses against microbial infection.

Although surgical treatment of CRS has shown higher efficacy than medical management, recurrence remains a substantial concern. In patients with CRS and nasal polyps, recurrence rates range from 60% to 80%, and approximately 14% to 24% may require revision surgery due to severe disease progression [7]. These findings highlight the limitations of attributing CRS solely to anatomical obstruction, emphasizing the role of heterogeneous immunological and inflammatory mechanisms. Even when surgery successfully removes polyps and restores sinus ventilation and mucociliary function, completely suppressing the underlying immunological inflammation remains challenging.

CRS was previously classified phenotypically according to the presence or absence of nasal polyps. However, the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) 2020 introduced an endotype-based classification, distinguishing primary from secondary CRS and further subcategorizing primary CRS based on clinical markers linked to allergy and type 2 inflammation [1,8]. Thus, surgical decision-making for CRS is no longer determined solely by the presence of nasal polyps. In contrast, the American International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis 2021 continues to frame treatment strategies based on the presence of nasal polyps [9].

CRS is now increasingly understood as a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by an aberrant immune response to environmental factors, rather than simply as an obstructive or infectious disease. Accordingly, the objectives of surgery have evolved. Rather than focusing exclusively on restoring sinus patency or ventilation, the primary goal of surgical treatment in CRS is to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life, except in cases involving severe complications of the orbit or central nervous system, where surgery is indicated regardless of symptom severity. As a chronic disease that requires ongoing, multidisciplinary management, ESS is one component of comprehensive care that not only restores ventilation and drainage but also optimizes the delivery of topical therapies and saline irrigations [5,9].

Indications and Timing of Surgical Treatment for CRS

Traditionally, surgical intervention for CRS has been considered when maximal medical therapy fails [9]. However, universally established criteria are lacking due to variability in treatment modalities, duration, and patient adherence. Actual rates of ESS vary considerably by region: in 2015, the average number of surgeries per 1,000 population was 0.94 in the United States (US), 0.53 in the United Kingdom (UK), 0.33 in Alberta (Canada), and 0.71 in Finland [10–12]. A meta-analysis reported that only 21% of CRS patients undergoing ESS had received adequate preoperative medical therapy. Among these patients, 91% had used intranasal corticosteroid sprays for a mean of eight weeks, 61% had used oral steroids for a mean of 18 days, and 89% had received oral antibiotics for a mean of 23 days [13]. This highlights the need for clearer and more standardized surgical indications. Recent studies have responded by proposing objective preoperative assessments, such as the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and the Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) score [14].

A key criterion for evaluating the success of ESS is achieving the minimally clinically significant difference (MCID) in SNOT-22 scores. Studies indicate that 70% to 80% of CRS patients attain the MCID after ESS [15]. Patients with preoperative SNOT-22 scores above 30 are highly likely to reach the MCID threshold, while those with scores below 20 are less likely, likely due to a floor effect. It is generally recommended that surgery be considered if, after at least eight weeks of intranasal corticosteroid spray and, as needed, a course of oral steroids or antibiotics, the SNOT-22 score remains above 20. Rudmik et al. [16] provided evidence-based indications, recommending that CRS patients with nasal polyps, a Lund-Mackay score ≥1, and a persistent SNOT-22 score above 20 despite appropriate medical therapy may be considered for surgery. Although these thresholds are not absolute, they offer useful guidance for clinical decision-making and can help reduce unnecessary surgical interventions.

Recent research has also highlighted the importance of surgical timing. Prolonged intervals between diagnosis and surgery may negatively affect prognosis [17]. For example, Hopkins et al. [18] found that patients undergoing ESS within 12 months of diagnosis achieved better long-term symptom control. Additionally, analyses from the UK and US indicate that early ESS is associated with a reduced risk of subsequent asthma development [19]. A Swedish study further demonstrated that patients with CRS duration under 12 months experienced the most significant improvements in SNOT-22 scores after ESS [20]. Conversely, a US multicenter cohort study suggested that longer disease duration may be associated with greater postoperative quality-of-life gains [21]. However, extended disease duration may also lead to irreversible mucosal changes, emphasizing the need for timely surgical intervention. While randomized controlled trials are lacking, observational studies suggest that delayed surgery may compromise quality-of-life improvements and increase the risk of comorbidities such as asthma.

In summary, surgical management of CRS should integrate SNOT-22 scores, symptom control, and disease course. In patients with specific severe symptoms—such as anosmia, significant nasal obstruction, or recurrent infections—clinically meaningful improvement may be achieved with ESS even when total SNOT-22 scores are not markedly elevated. When symptoms persist despite optimized medical therapy, timely consideration of surgery is recommended to avoid unnecessary delays. Preoperative CT imaging is essential for surgical planning, with the Lund-Mackay score providing an objective measure of disease extent [1,9]. Future research should focus on establishing more standardized surgical indications.

Preoperative CT

Preoperative CT is indispensable for the diagnosis and surgical planning of CRS. Although neither EPOS nor other guidelines specify the timing of CT imaging, the American College of Radiology recommends non-contrast sinus CT as the imaging modality of choice for CRS diagnosis [22]. In cases where CRS is confirmed by nasal endoscopy and no significant findings—such as mucoceles—are present, CT imaging can be deferred until surgery is considered. However, preoperative CT is critical for delineating disease extent and assessing anatomical structures that may increase intraoperative complication risks. Multiplanar imaging (axial, coronal, and sagittal views) is necessary for comprehensive anatomical assessment [23]. Several systematic evaluation methods have been introduced, with the CLOSE technique (cribriform plate, lamina papyracea, Onodi cell, sphenoid sinus, and ethmoidal arteries) being widely used (Table 1) [1,24]. This approach improves the preoperative identification of high-risk anatomical variants and enhances intraoperative safety. Repeat CT imaging after initial preoperative assessment is generally unnecessary unless additional surgical interventions are planned. In a retrospective study analyzing 56 patients with an average CT interval of 782 days between scans, no significant changes in Lund-Mackay scores were observed, and repeat imaging did not influence surgical decision-making [25].

Anesthesia Techniques for ESS

Innovations in anesthesia techniques have paralleled advances in ESS. The choice of anesthesia has a direct impact on intraoperative bleeding, visualization, operative time, and complication risk. The two main anesthetic methods for ESS are total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia (IA), both of which may include controlled hypotension to minimize bleeding. TIVA uses agents such as propofol, often with adjuncts like remifentanil or fentanyl, while IA involves halogenated ethers such as isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. Studies have shown that TIVA reduces central nervous system-mediated peripheral blood pressure, thereby reducing venous bleeding. In contrast, IA induces hypotension through peripheral vasodilation but may paradoxically increase capillary bleeding [26]. TIVA is also associated with lower rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to IA, and may be more cost-effective. Controlled hypotension, in which the mean arterial pressure (MAP) is intentionally lowered, is crucial for improving the surgical field and reducing bleeding [27]. However, MAP below 60 mmHg increases the risk of cerebral ischemia; thus, maintaining MAP between 60 to 70 mmHg is generally considered safe. Combining TIVA with dexmedetomidine (an α2-agonist) or a beta-blocker has been proposed as an effective strategy to optimize surgical conditions.

Advances in ESS

The paranasal sinuses include the maxillary, anterior ethmoid, posterior ethmoid, sphenoid, and frontal sinuses. Prior to the advent of endoscopic techniques, traditional surgical approaches such as Caldwell-Luc procedures and intranasal ethmoidectomy required extensive removal of diseased sinus mucosa. However, subsequent discoveries that mucociliary clearance occurs through the natural sinus ostia, and that the sinus mucosa is capable of regeneration even after injury, led to a paradigm shift toward more conservative, function-preserving techniques [28]. As a result, middle meatal antrostomy (MMA), which enlarges the natural maxillary ostium, has largely replaced inferior meatal antrostomy in maxillary sinus surgery.

The introduction of endoscopic methods enabled direct visualization of the sinus mucosa and the development of functional ESS, which emphasizes the selective removal of only irreversibly diseased tissue. Functional ESS is designed to clear transitional areas, particularly the anterior ethmoid region, to restore sinus ventilation and drainage without the need for extensive resection. Studies comparing traditional Caldwell-Luc procedures with MMA have shown the superiority of MMA in terms of symptom improvement and mucosal preservation [29].

In recent years, image-guided navigation systems that integrate preoperative CT data for real-time intraoperative localization have further enhanced the safety and precision of ESS [30]. In Korea, partial insurance reimbursement is provided for this technology under specific indications. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery recommends the use of image guidance for revision surgery, in cases of distorted anatomy, or when critical anatomical landmarks are difficult to identify (Table 2) [31].

Extent of ESS

The location and severity of pathology determine the necessary extent of surgery. There is ongoing debate as to whether all sinuses should be surgically opened or only those with clear pathological involvement. Recent advances include minimally invasive sinus techniques (MIST) and balloon sinuplasty [32,33]. MIST seeks to preserve the natural ostium and targets only transitional spaces, thereby maximizing mucosal preservation. For example, MIST removes the uncinate process without directly enlarging the maxillary ostium. Balloon sinuplasty, performed under endoscopic guidance, involves the insertion and inflation of a balloon catheter at the site of obstruction, thereby expanding the sinus ostium while preserving the mucosa. This technique minimizes bleeding, tissue trauma, and postoperative scarring. MIST and balloon sinuplasty are suitable for patients with mild CRS, whereas more extensive ESS may be required for severe CRS or CRS with nasal polyps.

A significant point of debate in ESS is whether to preserve or remove inflamed sinus mucosa. Nasalization procedures, which involve the extensive removal of inflamed mucosa, have shown efficacy in reducing symptoms and polyp recurrence in CRS with nasal polyps [34]. More aggressive approaches, such as the “reboot” procedure, involving complete or partial removal of the sinus mucosa, or endoscopic medial maxillectomy, have also been proposed for refractory disease [35]. However, mucosal resection carries risks including olfactory impairment, cerebrospinal fluid leak, and chronic crusting, necessitating careful patient selection. While current evidence supports the benefits of these approaches in CRS with nasal polyps, direct comparative studies with mucosa-preserving ESS remain limited, underscoring the need for further research.

Anatomically, the maxillary sinus is the second most commonly treated site after the anterior ethmoid sinus, in keeping with traditional principles of improving OMU function. Multiple studies in CRS with nasal polyps have highlighted the importance of maintaining the patency of the natural maxillary ostium. In ethmoid sinus surgery, precise removal based on anterior or posterior compartment involvement is critical, given the proximity of vital structures such as the optic nerve and orbit. Surgical planning for posterior ethmoid sinuses must also account for their continuity with the sphenoid and frontal sinuses. Sphenoid sinus surgery, indicated for obstructive lesions such as polyps or fungal balls, demands a high degree of precision due to the close relationship with the optic nerve and internal carotid artery; excessive enlargement may result in dural exposure or optic nerve injury. Surgical approaches include transnasal direct and transethmoidal routes, both requiring a thorough understanding of sinus anatomy.

Frontal sinus surgery remains the most technically challenging aspect of ESS due to the narrow anatomy and high risk of complications with aggressive manipulation. Draf’s classification [36], introduced in 1991, continues to be widely used: Draf I removes only anterior ethmoid cells without manipulating the frontal ostium; Draf IIa extends from the lamina papyracea to the middle turbinate, typically creating an ostial diameter ≥4.5 mm [37]; Draf IIb removes the frontal sinus floor up to the nasal septum and is indicated for cases with lateralized middle turbinate, adhesions from prior surgery, mucoceles, or tumors [38]; Draf III, also known as the endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure, involves removing the upper nasal septum and bilateral frontal sinus floors to create a common drainage pathway extending from one lamina papyracea to the other.

Complications of ESS

Despite significant technological advancements and the refinement of surgical techniques, complications remain possible during ESS due to the close proximity of the paranasal sinuses to critical structures such as the skull base, orbit, and major vessels. Complications are classified by frequency and severity into three grades: minor (grade I), moderate (grade II), and major (grade III) (Table 3) [1,9]. Thorough preoperative CT imaging is essential for identifying anatomical variations. Intraoperative awareness of key structures, along with selective use of image-guided navigation systems, can substantially reduce complication rates. Effective blood pressure management and optimal patient positioning during surgery also contribute to improved safety outcomes.

Role of Septoplasty and Turbinate Surgery in ESS

Anatomical factors, such as septal deviation or turbinate hypertrophy, can impede endoscopic access and visualization during ESS. In these situations, concomitant septoplasty or turbinate surgery is often considered to optimize surgical effectiveness. Septoplasty enhances surgical exposure, while inferior turbinate reduction improves postoperative nasal airflow and symptom relief. Middle turbinate resection may be performed if the structure obstructs access or is damaged during surgery. Some studies indicate that middle turbinate resection may improve surgical access, disease clearance, and reduce recurrence rates [39]. However, the middle turbinate is a key landmark for intranasal spatial orientation and mucociliary function. Excessive resection can result in long-term sequelae such as empty nose syndrome. Therefore, decisions regarding middle turbinate resection should be individualized based on anatomical features, disease extent, and prior interventions. A conservative approach is generally recommended, with limited resection undertaken only when specifically indicated.

Postoperative Care Following ESS

Appropriate postoperative care is crucial for promoting mucosal healing, minimizing complications, and optimizing surgical outcomes. The most strongly recommended interventions include nasal saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroid sprays. Saline irrigation efficiently removes mucus, crusts, and inflammatory mediators with minimal adverse effects. Isotonic saline is generally preferred over hypertonic solutions due to similar efficacy and reduced irritation. Irrigation should commence within 24 to 48 hours postoperatively, with high-volume (>1,000 mL), twice-daily irrigations providing the greatest benefit during the initial two weeks [40]. Intranasal corticosteroid sprays have demonstrated clinically significant improvements in SNOT-22 scores and endoscopic findings [41]. Routine use of systemic corticosteroids is not supported for long-term postoperative management, given the potential for adverse effects and lack of sustained benefit.

Routine postoperative oral antibiotics are not recommended; their use should be individualized. Some studies report statistically significant symptomatic improvement with long-term, low-dose macrolides [42,43], but meta-analyses have not demonstrated meaningful long-term benefits in reducing infection, alleviating symptoms, or preventing toxic shock syndrome [44,45]. Postoperative debridement can facilitate re-epithelialization and decrease adhesion formation by removing residual crusts and secretions. However, selective, rather than routine, debridement is advised due to patient discomfort [46]. Other topical agents, such as hyaluronic acid and mitomycin C, have been studied, but current evidence does not support their routine use.

Revision Surgery for CRS

Revision ESS is indicated for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms following initial surgery. Surgical objectives are individualized and may range from simple adhesion or scar removal and correction of lateralized turbinates to more extensive procedures such as Draf III frontal sinus surgery, medial maxillectomy, or removal of the anterior sphenoid wall. The primary aims are symptom relief, reduction in medication dependence, and quality-of-life improvement, with patient-reported outcome measures, such as the SNOT-22, used for assessment [47]. Revision surgery also seeks to create cavities suitable for topical therapy, address anatomical variants, and remove residual cells and scar tissue. Revision is generally considered after at least two months of optimal medical management, including antibiotics, topical and systemic steroids, and saline irrigation, when symptoms persist or imaging reveals mucosal thickening, purulence, polyps, or edema. In CRS with nasal polyps, recurrence is the main indication for revision. In CRS without nasal polyps, the need for surgery is less clear and should be guided by objective findings such as obstruction or localized inflammation. Frontal sinusotomy is among the most technically challenging revision procedures, often necessitated by residual frontal cells, neo-osteogenesis, lateralized middle turbinate, or persistent anterior ethmoid cells [48]. A comprehensive, patient-specific surgical plan based on endoscopic and radiologic evaluation is essential.

Recent Advances in CRS Treatment

Although CRS presents in diverse forms, it can generally be controlled or cured with appropriate medical or surgical therapy. However, some patients remain symptomatic despite comprehensive treatment, including surgery. EPOS defines uncontrolled or refractory CRS as persistent symptoms despite appropriate surgery, intranasal corticosteroid therapy, and no more than two short courses of antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids in the preceding year. CRS with nasal polyps, particularly those of the eosinophilic, type 2 immune response phenotype, is closely associated with asthma and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease and is known for its high recurrence rate. More than 50% of recurrent CRS cases are associated with type 2 inflammation, with peripheral eosinophilia serving as a strong predictor of recurrence. Type 2 inflammatory CRS often exhibits resistance to conventional therapy, and repeated systemic steroid use raises the risk of adverse effects, underscoring the need for more effective and safer therapeutic strategies. In this context, biologic agents have emerged as promising adjunctive therapies. Agents targeting key cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13 (e.g., dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab), have shown significant benefits in patients with CRS with nasal polyps. These biologics are increasingly used as stand-alone therapies or in combination with surgery, offering new treatment options for refractory CRS that does not respond to conventional management.

Conclusion

CRS is a multifactorial disease characterized by complex pathophysiological and immunological mechanisms, necessitating individualized treatment strategies tailored to each patient's phenotype and endotype. When medical therapy is insufficient, ESS is effective for correcting anatomical abnormalities and creating an environment conducive to inflammation control. Optimal outcomes require meticulous surgical planning based on thorough endoscopic and radiologic assessment. Recent advances, including biologic therapies, improved postoperative management strategies, and structured long-term follow-up protocols, have advanced CRS management toward a more integrated, multidisciplinary, and evidence-based approach.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Table 1.

Preoperative paranasal sinus computed tomography checklist

	Item		Content
□	C	(Cribriform niche)	Evaluate the depth and asymmetry of the cribriform niche
□	L	(Lamina papyracea)	Assess for any dehiscence of the lamina papyracea (orbital medial wall)
□	O	(Onodi cell)	Identify the presence of Onodi (sphenoethmoidal) cells
□	S	(Sphenoid sinus)	Evaluate for bony dehiscence overlying the optic nerve and internal carotid artery
□	E	(Ethmoidal arteries)	Assess the location of the anterior and posterior ethmoidal arteries and their relationship to the skull base

Modified from Fokkens WJ et al. Rhinology 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464 [1].

Table 2.

Comparison of Korea National Insurance Criteria and AAO-HNS indications for navigation-assisted sinus surgery

Korea National Health Insurance Selective Coverage Criteria	AAO-HNS guidelines
Revision sinus surgery	Revision sinus surgery
Loss of normal anatomical landmarks due to nasal/sinus polyps, developmental anomalies, anatomical deformities, trauma, or tumors	Distorted sinus anatomy of development, postoperative, or traumatic origin
Surgery for skull base lesions or tumors without intracranial invasion	Extensive sino-nasal polyposis
	Pathology involving the frontal, posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses
	Disease abutting the skull base, orbit, optic nerve, or carotid artery
	Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea or conditions where there is a skull base defect
	Benign and malignant sino-nasal neoplasms

AAO-HNS, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Table 3.

Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery

Grade	Classification	Examples of complications
Grade I	Mild complications	Diffuse or arterial bleeding (<1,000 mL)
	Treatable intraoperatively	Injury of the lamina papyracea
	No lasting sequelae	Emphysema
		Periorbital ecchymosis
		Intranasal and soft tissue infection
Grade II	Moderate complications	Diffuse or arterial bleeding (>1,000 mL)
	Intraoperative intervention or reoperation	Bleeding requiring selective cauterizing/clipping of the sphenopalatine artery or anterior ethmoidal artery
	No lasting sequelae	Bleeding requiring revision
		Cerebrospinal fluid leak
		Injury of the lacrimal duct
Grade III	Severe complications	Meningitis with or without proven leak
	Permanent functional impairment	Intracerebral hemorrhage
	Life-threatening	Intracerebral abscess
		Temporary or persistent neurologic deficit
		Retro-orbital hemorrhage
		Injury of the optic nerve
		Injury of the orbital muscles with diplopia
		Any reduction of vision and blindness
		Injury of the internal carotid artery
		Toxic shock syndrome

Modified from Fokkens WJ et al. Rhinology 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464 [1]. Modified from Orlandi RR et al. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2021;11:213–739 [9].

References

1. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464.

2. Min HK, Lee S, Kim S, et al. Global incidence and prevalence of chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review. Clin Exp Allergy 2025;55:52–66.

3. Kim YS, Kim NH, Seong SY, Kim KR, Lee GB, Kim KS. Prevalence and risk factors of chronic rhinosinusitis in Korea. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011;25:117–121.

4. Joo YH. The classification, diagnosis, and treatment of rhinosinusitis. J Korean Med Assoc 2022;65:289–296.

5. Kennedy DW, Zinreich SJ, Rosenbaum AE, Johns ME. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: theory and diagnostic evaluation. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111:576–582.

6. Bassiouni A, Wormald PJ. Role of frontal sinus surgery in nasal polyp recurrence. Laryngoscope 2013;123:36–41.

7. Loftus CA, Soler ZM, Koochakzadeh S, et al. Revision surgery rates in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: meta-analysis of risk factors. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:199–207.

8. Bachert C, Zhang N, Hellings PW, Bousquet J. Endotype-driven care pathways in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018;141:1543–1551.

9. Orlandi RR, Kingdom TT, Smith TL, et al. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2021;11:213–739.

10. Toppila-Salmi S, Rihkanen H, Arffman M, Manderbacka K, Keskimaki I, Hytönen ML. Regional differences in endoscopic sinus surgery in Finland: a nationwide register-based study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e022173.

11. Rudmik L, Holy CE, Smith TL. Geographic variation of endoscopic sinus surgery in the United States. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1772–1778.

12. Rudmik L, Bird C, Dean S, Dort JC, Schorn R, Kukec E. Geographic variation of endoscopic sinus surgery in Canada: an Alberta-based small area variation analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;153:865–874.

13. Dautremont JF, Rudmik L. When are we operating for chronic rhinosinusitis?: a systematic review of maximal medical therapy protocols prior to endoscopic sinus surgery.. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015;5:1095–1103.

14. Beswick DM, Mace JC, Soler ZM, et al. Appropriateness criteria predict outcomes for sinus surgery and may aid in future patient selection. Laryngoscope 2018;128:2448–2454.

15. Singla G, Singh M, Singh A, Kaur I, Harsh K, Jasmeen K. Is sino-nasal outcome test-22 reliable for guiding chronic rhinosinusitis patients for endoscopic sinus surgery? Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21:1228–1233.

16. Rudmik L, Soler ZM, Hopkins C, et al. Defining appropriateness criteria for endoscopic sinus surgery during management of uncomplicated adult chronic rhinosinusitis: a RAND/UCLA appropriateness study. Rhinology 2016;54:117–128.

17. Bell CM, Yip J. Timing of surgery and outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis: a narrative review and meta-analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024;53:19160216241248541.

18. Hopkins C, Andrews P, Holy CE. Does time to endoscopic sinus surgery impact outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis?: retrospective analysis using the UK clinical practice research data.. Rhinology 2015;53:18–24.

19. Benninger MS, Sindwani R, Holy CE, Hopkins C. Impact of medically recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis on incidence of asthma. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2016;6:124–129.

20. Stankiewicz J, Tami T, Truitt T, et al. Impact of chronic rhinosinusitis on work productivity through one-year follow-up after balloon dilation of the ethmoid infundibulum. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;1:38–45.

21. Alt JA, Orlandi RR, Mace JC, Soler ZM, Smith TL. Does delaying endoscopic sinus surgery adversely impact quality-of-life outcomes? Laryngoscope 2019;129:303–311.

22. Expert Panel on Neurological Imaging, Hagiwara M, Policeni B, et al. ACR appropriateness Criteria® sinonasal disease: 2021 update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19(5S):S175–S193.

23. Hoang JK, Eastwood JD, Tebbit CL, Glastonbury CM. Multiplanar sinus CT: a systematic approach to imaging before functional endoscopic sinus surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:W527–W536.

24. O’Brien WT Sr, Hamelin S, Weitzel EK. The preoperative sinus CT: avoiding a “CLOSE” call with surgical complications. Radiology 2016;281:10–21.

25. Huang L, Iqbal I, Pun A, et al. Is there a role for up-to-date imaging in patients awaiting sinus surgery? Aust J Otolaryngol 2020;3.

26. Yoo HS, Han JH, Park SW, Kim KS. Comparison of surgical condition in endoscopic sinus surgery using remifentanil combined with propofol, sevoflurane, or desflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol 2010;59:377–382.

27. Farzanegan B, Eraghi MG, Abdollahi S, et al. Evaluation of cerebral oxygen saturation during hypotensive anesthesia in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2018;34:503–506.

28. Yilmaz F, Koyuncu M, Coşkun C, Yildiz L, Bernay I, Seşen T. The effects of natural ostium and nasoantral window on mucosal regeneration after maxillary sinus surgery in rabbits. Rhinology 2000;38:150–155.

29. Joe Jacob K, George S, Preethi S, Arunraj VS. A comparative study between endoscopic middle meatal antrostomy and caldwell-luc surgery in the treatment of chronic maxillary sinusitis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;63:214–219.

30. Stelter K, Ertl-Wagner B, Luz M, et al. Evaluation of an image-guided navigation system in the training of functional endoscopic sinus surgeons: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Rhinology 2011;49:429–437.

31. Lim SC. Image guided endoscopic sinus surgery. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2015;58:305–312.

32. Setliff RC 3rd. Minimally invasive sinus surgery: the rationale and the technique. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:115–124.

33. Salama N, Oakley RJ, Skilbeck CJ, Choudhury N, Jacob A. Benefit from the minimally invasive sinus technique. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:186–190.

34. Jankowski R, Bodino C. Olfaction in patients with nasal polyposis: effects of systemic steroids and radical ethmoidectomy with middle turbinate resection (nasalization). Rhinology 2003;41:220–230.

35. Alsaleh S, Manji J, Javer A. Optimization of the surgical field in endoscopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based approach. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2019;19:8.

36. Draf W. Endonasal micro-endoscopic frontal sinus surgery: the Fulda concept. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;2:234–240.

37. DeConde AS, Smith TL. Outcomes after frontal sinus surgery: an evidence-based review. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2016;49:1019–1033.

38. Turner JH, Vaezeafshar R, Hwang PH. Indications and outcomes for Draf IIB frontal sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2016;30:70–73.

39. Choby GW, Hobson CE, Lee S, Wang EW. Clinical effects of middle turbinate resection after endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2014;28:502–507.

40. Kim ST, Sung UH, Jung JH, et al. The effect of maxillary sinus irrigation on early prognostic factors after endoscopic sinus surgery: a preliminary study. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2013;27:e158–e161.

41. Pundir V, Pundir J, Lancaster G, et al. Role of corticosteroids in functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rhinology 2016;54:3–19.

42. Amali A, Saedi B, Rahavi-Ezabadi S, Ghazavi H, Hassanpoor N. Long-term postoperative azithromycin in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015;29:421–424.

43. Haxel BR, Clemens M, Karaiskaki N, Dippold U, Kettern L, Mann WJ. Controlled trial for long-term low-dose erythromycin after sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1048–1055.

44. Saleh AM, Torres KM, Murad MH, Erwin PJ, Driscoll CL. Prophylactic perioperative antibiotic use in endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146:533–538.

45. Pynnonen MA, Venkatraman G, Davis GE. Macrolide therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:366–373.

46. Tzelnick S, Alkan U, Leshno M, Hwang P, Soudry E. Sinonasal debridement versus no debridement for the postoperative care of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:CD011988.

47. Prasad S, Fong E, Ooi EH. Systematic review of patient-reported outcomes after revision endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2017;31:248–255.

48. Valdes CJ, Bogado M, Samaha M. Causes of failure in endoscopic frontal sinus surgery in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014;4:502–506.