Comparison between microdebrider assisted surgery and the conventional methods in the surgical treatment of nasal polyps


  • Shama A. Bellad Department of ENT and HNS, KAHER’s J.N. Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
  • N. Manjunath Department of ENT and HNS, Vijayanagara Institute of medical sciences, Bellary, Karnataka, India
  • Shilpa Ravi Healthspring, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India



Microdebrider, Nasal polyposis, Endoscopic sinus surgery, Randomised clinical trial


Background: Microdebrider is emerging as a convenient tool for various ENT surgeries that helps in easier disease clearance and reduced morbidity. Though it requires some surgical expertise initially to master the skill of handling it, it is worth procuring and using in endoscopic sinus surgery. The present study was conducted to compare the microdebrider assisted endoscopic surgery and conventional methods using sinus endoscopes in the surgical management of nasal polyps.

Methods: 30 patients diagnosed with nasal polyposis between the age group of 5 to 60 were equally randomized into 2 surgical groups- powered endoscopic sinus surgery group and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery group with 15 patients in each group. The study aimed at comparing the intra operative (blood loss, duration of surgery) and post operative results (crusting, scarring, discharge, symptoms, recurrence) between the two groups using Lund–Mackay scoring system and visual analogue scale. The data was statistically analysed.  

Results: A significant statistical evidence for a shorter operative time, dryness of the field, better surgical conditions and improved VAS scoring at 3 and 6 months postoperatively was observed in the powered endoscopy group than using conventional techniques.

Conclusions: The use of microdebrider in endoscopic sinus surgery has the advantage of complete clearance of disease, smoother intra operative course and better post operative healing when compared to conventional instruments in the treatment of nasal polyps.


Author Biography

Shama A. Bellad, Department of ENT and HNS, KAHER’s J.N. Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

Department of ENT & HNS, Assistant Professor


Mygind N, Lund JV, Jones RJ. Nasal polyposis and surgical management of rhinosinusitis. In: Gleeson M, Browning GG, Burton JM et al. Scott and Brown”s Otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery, Edward Arnold publishers Ltd, 7th edition, 2008;2:1549-50, 1552-56, 1480-81.

Marks.SC, Endoscopic sinus surgery. In: Marks S.C. Textbook on nasal and sinus surgery, W.B. Saunders Company 2000: 119,125-126,140-141.

Becker SS. Surgical management of polyps in the treatment of nasal airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009;42(2):377-85.

Bernstein JM, Lebowitz RA, Jacobs JB. Initial report on postoperative healing after endoscopic sinus surgery with the microdebrider. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;118(6):800-3.

Gross CW, Becker DG. Power instrumentation in endoscopic sinus surgery Oper Tech Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg.1996;7(3):236-41.

Christmas DA, Krouse JH. Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgery II: a comparative study. Ear Nose Throat J. 1996;75(1):42-4.

Singh R, Hazarika P, Nayak D, Balakrishnan R, Gangwar N, Hazarika M. A comparison of microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polypi. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;65(3):193-6.

Sutay S. Microdebrider and complications in endoscopic surgery for nasal polyposis. Turkish Arch Otolaryngol. 2002;40(2):110-4.

Selivanova O, Kuehnemund M, Mann WJ, Amedee RG. Comparison of conventional instruments and mechanical debriders for surgery of patients with chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2003;17(4):197-202.

Stankiewicz JA. Complications of intranasal ethmoidectomy. Laryngoscope. 1987;97:1270-3.

Setliff RC, Parsons DS. The “Hummer”: new instrumentation for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol. 1994;8:275-8.

Sauer M, Lemmens W, Vauterin T. Comparing the microdebrider and standard instruments in endoscopic sinus surgery: a double-blind randomized study. B-ENT. 2007;3:1

Waguespack R. Mucociliary clearance patterns following endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(7 Pt 2 Suppl 71):1-40.

Berenholz L, Kessler A, Sarfaty S, Segal S. Subarachnoid haemorrhage: a complication of endoscopic sinus surgery using powered instrumentation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121:665-7.

Ecevit MC, Sutay S, Erdag TK. The microdebrider and its complications in endoscopic surgery for nasal polyposis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;37(2):160-4.

Bruggers S, Sindwani R. Evolving trends in powered endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009;42(5):789-98.

Bruggers S, Sindwani R. Innovations in microdebrider technology and design. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009;42(5):781-7.






Original Research Articles