Prevalence and influencing factors of sleep disorders in patients with CRS: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common chronic disease that seriously affects patients' quality of life and imposes a heavy physical and mental burden on patients. There is growing evidence that sleep disorders are strongly associated with patients with CRS. However, there is no systematic evidence to clarify the prevalence and influencing factors of sleep disorders in patients with CRS with nasal polyps (NP) (CRSwNP) and CRS without NP (CRSsNP). For this reason, this study will systematically analyse the prevalence of sleep disorders in patients with CRSwNP and CRSsNP and explore the related influencing factors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will electronically search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid, Scopus, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database, the China Biomedical Literature Database and the China Scientific Journals Database from the establishment of the database to September 2023 to collect the prevalence of sleep disorders in patients with CRSwNP or CRSsNP and related studies on factors affecting sleep disorders. Two researchers will independently conduct literature screening and data extraction and evaluate the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality scales. The extracted data will be meta-analysed using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software, and the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Publication bias will be assessed using the funnel plots, Egger's test and Begg's test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will not require ethical approval, as we will only use research data from the published documents. Our final findings will be published in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal for dissemination. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023446833.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg's test, Egger's test, and funnel plot test. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.