Evidence-based approaches for Empty Nose Syndrome management: a systematic review highlighting current treatments and future directions
Galaverni G., Adamo D., Raj AC., Genna VG., Pellegrini G.
Systematic Review, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 42027390
- PMCID
- PMC13099783
- DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2026.1778266
Abstract (original English)
Background Empty nose syndrome (ENS) is an iatrogenic condition that develops following turbinate surgery. ENS presents with paradoxical nasal obstruction, sensation of suffocation, nasal dryness, accompanied by a substantial psychological burden, resulting in a high suicide rate and a severely diminished quality of life. Available treatments for ENS are often ineffective, underscoring the need for innovative interventions. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the current therapeutic strategies for ENS and evaluates their reported efficacy. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EudraCT in August 2025. Of 788 identified studies, 44 met the inclusion criteria: English language, full-text availability, human subjects, primary focus on ENS treatment, and classification as research articles or case reports. Study characteristics were organized into macro-themes - study type, population, therapeutic approach, follow-up, outcomes, adverse events, and vascularization strategies - and related micro-themes. Results The majority of studies were case series (30), while fewer studies consisted of case reports (8), case-control (3), cohort (3), and randomized controlled trials (1). Sample sizes were limited, with a predominance of male participants. Implant-based int
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.