Visual analogue score and endoscopic domain analysis to assess the outcome of microdebrder in sinonasal diseases
Keywords:Microdebrider, Visual analogue scale, Endoscopic sinus surgery
Background: The use of microdebrider in various sinonasal diseases have been sparingly understood. The present study aims to find out the effectiveness of a microdebrider in different sinonasal diseases by using each domain of visual analogue scale (VAS) and confirming the findings by diagnostic nasal endoscopy.
Methods: A prospective observational study was done among patients with sinonasal disease between January 2019 to March 2020 in our tertiary care hospital. A subjective visual analogue scale (VAS) was completed by every patient for all domains according to Lund and Mackay symptom scoring system. Using Lund Kennedy scoring, polyp, edema and discharge were assessed preoperatively. Patients were followed up for 1 week, 6 weeks and 3 months. At 3 months both VAS and Lund Kennedy scoring was done. Post operatively scarring and crusting were assessed separately.
Results: There was a significant improvement in domains post operatively in all the diseases considered (p=0.001). In Lund Kennedy endoscopic scoring system there was significant improvement in all the domain that was taken into consideration (p=0.001). Inter-disease domain comparison was also made.
Conclusions: The study substantiates the use of microdebrider in various sinonasal disease. Microdebrider being a modern multipurpose instrument plays a significant role in complete clearance of the disease with good postoperative outcome.
Higgins TS, Lane AP. Surgery for sinonasal disease. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2013;27:S42-S44.
Harugop AS, Mudhol RS, Amrit K. Subjective Outcome Of Endoscoperativeic Sinus Surgery in patients of Chronic Rhinosinusitis without Nasal Polyposis and Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis- A Comparative Study. Biomed J. 2014;134(3):348-553.
Lund VJ, Jones JR. Surgical management of rhinosinusitis In: Gleeson M, editor Scott-Brown’s Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. 7th ed.Great Britain: Edward Arnold. 2008: 1478-1499.
Bruggers S, Sindwani R. Innovations in microdebrider technology and design. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2009;42:781-7.
Ghera B, Munjal M, Choperativera H. Comparative study of conventional versus microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery in sinonasal polyposis. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;2(4):197-204.
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.
Kumar N, Sindwani R. Bipolar microdebrider reduces operative time and blood loss during nasal polyp surgery. Laryngoscoperativee. 2009;119:43.
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.
Bellad SA, Manjunath N, Ravi S. Comparison between microdebrider assisted surgery and the conventional methods in the surgical treatment of nasal polyps. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;5:154-8.