Comparative study of conventional versus microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery in sinonasal polyposis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20162226Keywords:
Sinonasal polyposis, Conventional instruments, Microdebrider, Endoscopic sinus surgeryAbstract
Background: Functional endoscopic sinus surgery, conventional or with powered instruments is the standard surgical modality in sinonasal polyposis refractive to medical therapy. The recent modality, microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery offers better therapeutic approach for patients when compared to endoscopic sinus surgery with the conventional instruments. The objective was to evaluate the utility of microdebrider in endoscopic sinus surgery versus conventional instruments and to compare the intraoperative and postoperative results in both the methods.
Methods: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted on 30 patients with bilateral sinonasal polyposis. The subjects were selected by applying all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and divided into two groups i.e. the right and left side of nose were operated and compared for efficacy of microdebrider and conventional instruments. Each patient served as his or her own control. This study emphasizes the utility of microdebrider. It compares the intraoperative and postoperative results in the conventional and microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery.
Results: The intraoperative mean blood loss and duration of surgery were significantly higher in the conventional group (p-value <0.001) as compared to microdebrider group. Postoperative symptom and endoscopy scores (discharge, scarring, crusting and polyp recurrence) were significantly higher in the conventional group (p-value <0.001) as compared to the microdebrider group in 6 months follow up.
Conclusions: Microdebriders are more effective as compared to conventional endoscopic sinus surgery due to lesser intraoperative bleeding (relatively bloodless) and duration of surgery, better postoperative endoscopic and symptom scores, combine cutting and suction in a single tool, enabling accurate and precise tissue removal without damaging the surrounding mucosa , less scarring/synechiae, fewer complications.Metrics
References
Hedman J, Kaprio J, Poussa T, Mieminem MM. Prevalence of asthma, aspirin intolerance, nasal polyposis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a population-based study. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:717-22.
Sindwani R, Manz R. Technological innovations in tissue removal during rhinologic surgery. Am J Rhino Allergy. 2012;26(1):65-9.
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.
Sauer M, Lemmens W, Vauterin T. Comparing the microdebrider and standard instruments in endoscopic sinus surgery: a double-blind randomized study. B-ENT. 2007;3:1-7.
Kursat C, Unal B, Zeynep K. Impact of microdebrider in surgical treatment of nasal polyposis in terms of health related quality of life and objective findings: a comparative randomized single blinded clinical study. KKB Forum. 2007;6(2):60-5.
Singh R, Hazarika P, Dipak R. 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.
Magdy ES, Sameh MR, Osama A. Albirmawy HS. Powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis. European Arch Otorhinolaryngo. 2013;270(1):149-55.
Cornet ME, Reinartz SM, Georgalas C, Spronsen E, Fokkens WJ. The microdebrider, a step forward or an expensive gadget? Rhinology. 2012;50(2):191-8.
Kakkar V, Sharma C, Singla P, Gulati A, Singh S, Malik P. To compare the results of endoscopic sinus surgery with and without microdebrider in patients of nasal polyposis. Clin Rhinol An Int J. 2014;7(2):61-3.
Lund V, Mackay I. Staging of rhinosinusitis. Rhinology. 1993;31:183-4.
Lund VJ, Kennedy DW. Quantification for staging sinusitis. International conference on sinus disease: terminology, staging, therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1995;104:17-21.
Lund VJ, Mackay IS. Staging in rhinosinusitis. Rhinology. 1993;107:183-4.
Banerji A, Piccirillo JF, Thawley SE. Chronic rhinosinusitis patients with polyp or polypodal mucosa have a greater burden of illness. Am J Rhinology. 2007;21:19-26.
Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Rhinol Suppl. 2012;(23):1-299.
Badia L, Lund V. Topical corticosteroids in nasal polyposis. Drugs. 2001;61:573-8.
Bruggers S, Sindwani R. Innovations in microdebrider technology and design Otolaryngol. Clin N Am. 2009;42:781-7.
Kennedy DW. Technical innovations and the evolution of endoscopic sinus surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2006;196:3-12.
Gunkel AR, Freysinger W, Martin A. Three-dimensional image-guided endonasal surgery with a microdebrider. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:834-8.
Stammberger H. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery the messerklinger technique. Eur Archives Oto Rhino Laryngology. 1990;247(2):63-76.
Bakari A, Afolabi OA, Adoga AA, Aliya M kodiya, Babagana M Ahamed. Clinicopathological profile of sinonasal masses: an experience in national ear care center Kaduna, Nigeria. BMC Research Notes. 2010;3:186-96.
Larsen K, Tos M. The estimated incidence of symptomatic nasal polyps. Acta Otolaryngol. 2002;122(2):179-82.
Drake LB, Lowe D, Swanston A, Grace A. Clinical profile and recurrence of nasal polyps. J Laryngol Otol. 1984;98(8):783-93.
Moloney JR. Nasal polyps, nasal polypectomy, asthma, and aspirin sensitivity. Their association in 445 cases of nasal polyps. J Laryngol Otol 1977;91:(10):837-46.
Larsen K, Tos M. Clinical course of patients with primary nasal polyps. Acta Otolaryngol. 1994;114(5):556-9.
Settipane G. Epidemiology of nasal polyps. In: Settipane G, Lund VJ, Bernstein JM, Tos M. Nasal polyps: epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment. Rhode Island:Oceanside Publications;1997;17-24.
Settipane GA, Chafee FH. Nasal polyps in asthma and rhinitis. A review of 6037 patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1977;59:17-21.
McFadden EA, Kany RJ, Fink JN, Toohill RJ. Surgery for sinusitis and aspirin triad. Laryngoscope.1990;100:1043-6.
Hu Y, Cao PP, Liang GT, Cui YH, Liu Z. Diagnostic significance of blood eosinophil count in eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Chinese adults. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(3):498-503.
Kuladeepa AV, Pai S, Nagaraj TS, Sukesh. Study on utility of nasal smear examination in diagnosing allergic rhinitis and its histopathological correlation in allergic nasal polyps. Int J Basic App Med Sci. 2015;5(1):2103-227.
H Gheriani, A Curran, Conrad Timon. Endoscopic sinus surgery outcome in patients with symptomatic chronic rhinosinusitis and minimal changes on computerised tomography. Ir Med J. 2006;99(1):15-6.
Sharp HR, Rowe JJM, Mackay IS. The outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery: correlation with computerised tomography score and systemic disease. Clinical Otolaryngology. 1999;24:39-42.
Metson RB, Glicklich RE. Clinical outcomes in patients with chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(94):24-8.
Rice DH. Endoscopic sinus surgery: results at 2 year follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989;101:476-9.
Dufour X, Bedier A, Ferrie JC, Gohler C, Klossek JM. Diffuse nasal polyposis and endonasal endoscopic surgery: long-term results, a 65-case study. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(11):1982-7.
Poetker DM, Mendolia LS, Smith TL. Outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis associated with sinonasal polyposis. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(1):84-8.
Meloni F, Stomeo F, Teatini GP. Post-operative recurrence of naso-sinus polyposis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 1990;10:173-9.
Bernstein JM, Lebowitz RA, Jacobs JB. Initial report on post operative healing after endoscopic sinus surgery with the microdebrider. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;118(6):800-3.
Krouse JH, Christmas DA Jr. Powered nasal polypectomy in the office setting. Ear Nose Throat J. 1996;75(9):608-10.
Ephraim E, Koby P, Haim G, Daniel K. Complications following powered endoscopic sinus surgery: an 11 year study o 1190 patients in a single institute in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J. 2014;16(6):338-40.
Microdebriders offer new surgical options. Available at http: //www.enttoday.org /article /microdebriders-offer-new-surgical-options/. Accessed at 20 March 2016.
