DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20212901

Comparative study of outcomes of conventional and endoscopic septoplasty

Kush B. Pandya, Manit M. Mandal, Ajay K. Panchal, Rakesh Kumar, Parth B. Kapadia, Mithram Wadia, Vipul Valiya, Neel Parmar

Abstract


Background: Literature and other available research states lots of comparison between endoscopic and conventional septoplasty. The study helps conclude the merits and demerits of both techniques and compares the superiority of one method over the other on various aspects from surgeon’s and patient’s point of view. The objective of the study was to compare outcomes of conventional and endoscopic septoplasty.

Methods: Study included 48 patients having symptomatic deviated nasal septum willing for surgery randomly divided into two groups of 24 each who underwent endoscopic septoplasty and conventional septoplasty. All the patients selected for study, were assessed for subjective and objective evaluation pre-operatively and post-operatively on 7th day, 1 month and 3 months. The study was conducted at Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education and Research (SMIMER), Surat.

Results: There are technical advantages of using endoscope during septoplasty as it is definitely superior from surgeon’s point of view but there is no significant difference in terms of functional outcome, complications and post-operative hospital stay.

Conclusions: There are technical advantages of using endoscope being superior in terms of illumination, preciseness and surgery, visualization of deeper parts of nasal cavity and resection of posterior deviation and spur especially in isolated septal spur and in achieving hemostasis. The study helps us conclude that endoscopic septoplasty has merits over conventional septoplasty on various aspects.


Keywords


Conventional septoplasty, Endoscopic septoplasty, Deviated nasal septum, Nasal obstruction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Sathyaki DC, Geetha C, Munishwara GB, Mohan M, Manjuanth K. A comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(2):155-61.

Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL. Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:157-63.

Gulati PS, Wadhera R, Ahuja N, Garg A, Ghai A. Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009:61(1):9-13.

Muhammad IA, Nabil-Ur Rahman. Complications of the surgery for the deviated nasal septum. J coll physicians surgery Pak. 2003;13(10):565-8.

Gupta M, Motwani G. Comparative study of endoscopic aided septoplasty and traditional septoplasty in posterior nasal septal deviations. Indian J Otolaryngol Head and Neck Surg. 2005;57(4):309-11.

Giles WC, Gross CW, Abram AC. How I do it Head and Neck Plastic surgery a targeted problem and its solution. Endoscopic Septoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1994;104(12):1507-9.

Hwang PH, MC Laughlin RB, Lanza DC. Endoscopic Septoplasty: indications, technique and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120:678.

Kaushik S, Vashistha S, Jain NK. Endoscopic vs Conventional Septoplasty: A Comparative Study. Clin Rhinol Int J. 2013;6(2):84-7.

Paradis J, Rotenberg BW. Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40(1):S28-33.