A Scoping Review of Cost Analyses in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Economic Trends, Cost Drivers, and Methodological Gaps.
4 affiliations
- 1Georgetown University School of Medicine Washington DC USA.
- 2Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Washington DC USA.
- 3Dahlgren Memorial Library Georgetown University Medical Center Washington DC USA.
- 4College of William & Mary Williamsburg Virginia USA.
Abstract
Objective
Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is the standard surgical intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), yet its economic value is not fully understood. This scoping review aims to synthesize economic evaluation of ESS, with emphasis on cost drivers, methodological approaches, and gaps in current literature.Data sources
This is a scoping review.Review methods
A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was done using major databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science) from inception to July 2025. Studies were screened and selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria, and the data regarding study characteristics, economic methodology, and reported cost components were extracted.Results
Of 1660 screened records, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in study design, economic methodology, cost definitions, and reporting practices of the included studies. Across studies, operative time, surgical extent, and surgical setting were among the factors associated with variation in procedural costs. Indirect costs were inconsistently reported, while patient out-of-pocket costs were not explicitly evaluated.Conclusion
Economic evaluations of ESS are highly heterogeneous, limiting direct comparison between studies. Although several studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness estimates for ESS, methodological heterogeneity limits conclusions regarding its long-term economic value. Standardized economic reporting frameworks are needed to improve comparability and clinical applicability.
Related
- Methodological drivers, reporting completeness, and transferability in HPV vaccination economic evaluations: A scoping review
- Pseudo-cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea following endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery for PitNET: a case report and literature review
- Blood Eosinophil Count and Lund–Mackay Ethmoid Score as Predictors of Recurrence After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in CRSwNP
- Subpial dissection technique in endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas with supradiaphragmatic extension
- Anchored Drill-Assisted Localization for Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Surgery in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Technical Report and Preliminary Efficacy Evaluation
BibTeX
@article{rana2026scoping,
title = {{A Scoping Review of Cost Analyses in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Economic Trends, Cost Drivers, and Methodological Gaps.}},
author = {Neha Rana and Daniel Swanson and Ethan Tsao and C Scott Dorris and Raj Wasan and Daniel Spielman},
journal = {Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/lio2.70611},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42922887},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A Scoping Review of Cost Analyses in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Economic Trends, Cost Drivers, and Methodological Gaps.
AU - Neha Rana
AU - Daniel Swanson
AU - Ethan Tsao
AU - C Scott Dorris
AU - Raj Wasan
AU - Daniel Spielman
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/21
JO - Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology
DO - 10.1002/lio2.70611
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42922887
AB - Objective Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is the standard surgical intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), yet its economic value is not fully understood. This scoping review aims to synthesize economic evaluation of ESS, with emphasis on cost drivers, methodological approaches, and gaps in current literature.Data sources This is a scoping review.Review methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was done using major databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science) from inception to July 2025. Studies were screened and selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria, and the data regarding study characteristics, economic methodology, and reported cost components were extracted.Results Of 1660 screened records, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in study design, economic methodology, cost definitions, and reporting practices of the included studies. Across studies, operative time, surgical extent, and surgical setting were among the factors associated with variation in procedural costs. Indirect costs were inconsistently reported, while patient out-of-pocket costs were not explicitly evaluated.Conclusion Economic evaluations of ESS are highly heterogeneous, limiting direct comparison between studies. Although several studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness estimates for ESS, methodological heterogeneity limits conclusions regarding its long-term economic value. Standardized economic reporting frameworks are needed to improve comparability and clinical applicability.
SN - 2378-8038
ER -