Endoscopic vidian and vidian‐branch neurectomy for refractory allergic rhinitis: A systematic review

Abstract Background Endoscopic vidian neurectomy is expected to provide good therapeutic relief in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) being refractory to medication therapy or conservative surgery. However, the evidence bases for its benefit remain debatable. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to clarify the therapeutic role of various forms of vidian neurectomy in refractory AR. Method Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of primary studies that reported original patient data for endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and vidian‐branch neurectomy, which includes selective vidian neurectomy (SVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN). The primary outcome was patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), to assess an improvement in nasal symptom severity and quality of patient's life. The incidence of surgical complications and other objective outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. Results This review included 24 clinical studies involving 1677 patients with refractory AR, of which 510 patients in six studies had combined chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and 95 patients in one study had combined asthma. Postoperative PROMs were significantly better than preoperatively in almost all patients who underwent vidianp (RQLQ: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40–2.92, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 5.15, 95% CI = 4.29–6.02, p < 0.001) or vidian‐branch neurectomy (RQLQ in PNN: SMD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.45–4.13, p < 0.001; VAS in PNN: SMD = 4.38, 95% CI = 3.41–5.34, p < 0.001), and were generally better than in the conservative treatment group. Dividing with 18 months as the cutoff point, a subgroup analysis of the follow‐up period was conducted, and the results showed that both long‐term and short‐term postoperative patients had considerably reduced symptoms compared to the preoperative period. The two surgical procedures, SVN and PNN, attributed to vidian‐branch neurectomy have extremely few complications. However, EVN is more likely to cause dry eyes and palatal numbness, with no other serious complications. In patients with AR and CRSwNP, vidian or selective vidian neurectomy combined with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is more effective than conventional FESS (RQLQ: SMD = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.66–2.69, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 6.42, 95% CI = 4.78–8.06, p < 0.001). For patients who have both AR and asthma, SVN with pharyngeal branch excision is a potential treatment option. Conclusion EVN and vidian‐branch neurectomy (including SVN and PNN) are effective treatments, but the former has a higher risk of complications. Additionally, vidian‐branch neurectomy with FESS is beneficial for patients with mixed CRSwNP. SVN is a potential approach for patients with coexisting AR and asthma.