Comparison of microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Kaipuzha, Ramiya Ramachandran; Venkataramanujam, Nirmal Coumare; Karthikeyan, Padmanabhan; Pulimoottil, Davis Thomas

doi:10.2478/rjr-2019-0011

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But they used the VAS for nasal obstruction and smell affection mainly. (9)(10)(11)(12) We used of SNOT22, it includes 22 items involving nasal, aural, sleep problems, physical and social performance for more accurate evaluation. The follow up schedules varied between the different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ghera et al's follow-up regimen was 1 week, 3, and 6 months (11). While the follow-up duration adopted by Kaipuzha et al was 6 months postoperative without a definite schedule for the follow-up visits (9). As we deal with a chronic disease with high tendency to recur, we made our schedule of follow-up visits at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery using microdebrider versus conventional instruments in chronic rhinosinusitis.

Henry,

Abdoul Jaleel,

Abo- Elmaged

et al. 2023

Aswan University Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a great impact of chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis on the quality of life and economy. Even greater than angina and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Many cases don't respond to systemic corticosteroids or even have contraindications. Here, the endoscopic surgery is indicated as stated by the most recent guidelines. Objectives: Comparing the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the conventional instruments and the microdebrider in removing nasal polyps. Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled study conducted on 100 patients diagnosed with resistant chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis at Aswan University Hospital. 50 patients underwent endoscopic sinus surgery using conventional instruments, and the other group a microdebrider. Comparing the intraoperative blood loss, field visibility, and the duration of the operation. In addition to the postoperative patient satisfaction and endoscopic improvement between the two groups. Results: Our study revealed significant differences in most of the intraoperative and postoperative variables in favor of using the microdebrider for nasal polyposis. Conclusion: The microdebrider is preferred by most surgeons to improve field visibility, reduce the operative time along with the amount of blood loss, and achieve patient satisfaction early postoperatively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery using microdebrider versus conventional instruments in chronic rhinosinusitis.

Henry,

Abdoul Jaleel,

Abo- Elmaged

et al. 2023

Aswan University Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The subjective and objective outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis using microdebrider versus conventional instruments: a randomized controlled trial

Abdoul Jaleel,

Abo El Magd,

El Tahan

et al. 2023

Egypt J Otolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the evolution of the microdebrider technology and its modulations to be suitable for rhinology, many attempts were carried out to replace the conventional instruments with microdebrider especially in cases of nasal polyposis. Also, many studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of both tools in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Those studies focused on objective outcomes as the duration of surgery and the amount of blood loss. Aim of the study Comparing the efficacy of microdebrider in cases of resistant chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis to conventional instruments. Analysis of subjective outcomes is mainly the quality of life of our patients, and not neglecting the objective outcomes but analyzing them thoroughly. Method This is a randomized controlled clinical trial, conducted on 100 patients which were diagnosed to have resistant chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis. We used the microdebrider in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for 50 patients and conventional instruments for the other 50 cases. We compared the operative time, amount of blood loss, and postoperative improvement of quality of life, the presence of adhesions, crustations, and complications, or recurrence of nasal polyposis in both groups. Results We found significant differences in favor of microdebrider mainly in the duration of surgery and the amount of blood loss. Patient satisfaction was better in the microdebrider group, especially in the short-term follow-up, while the postoperative clinical scores were better in the long run. Conclusion Using the microdebrider in dealing with nasal polyposis is much preferable to conventional instruments. For patients, they feel much better in a shorter duration postoperatively. For surgeons, the manipulations are easier, and the operative field is bloodless and clear.

show abstract

Comparison of microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

The Outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery using microdebrider versus conventional instruments in chronic rhinosinusitis.

The Outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery using microdebrider versus conventional instruments in chronic rhinosinusitis.

The subjective and objective outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis using microdebrider versus conventional instruments: a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About