Healing Process of Sinus Mucosa after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

Moriyama, Hiroshi; Yanagi, Kiyoshi; Ohtori, Nobuyoshi; Asai, Kazuyasu; Fukami, Masaya

doi:10.2500/105065896781795067

Cited by 60 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To provide for drainage of sinuses, mucosal preservation is essential, or when severely damaged, limited removal of pathological changes should be attempted. [12][13][14] Rapid postoperative recovery of mucociliary function depends on mucosal and ciliary regeneration. 14 Aggressive removal of mucosa leads to scar formation and resultant synechiae may occur between opposing damaged surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Compare the Results of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery with and without Microdebrider in Patients of Nasal Polyposis

Singla¹,

Gulati²,

Singh³

et al. 2014

An International Journal Clinical Rhinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the results in patients of nasal polyposis undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery with or without the use of microdebrider. Materials and methods:The study was conducted on 40 patients of either sex in age group 15 to 60 years with nasal polyposis. They were divided into two groups (20 each), in group A microdebrider was used and in group B it was not used. Symp-tom scoring of each patient was done on the basis of nasal blockage, headache, olfactory disturbance, nasal discharge and trigeminal pressure pain. Similar scoring was followed for diagnostic endoscopy in which the scoring was done on the basis of extent of polyps, edema of middle turbinate and secretions in middle meatus. Both the left and right sides were examined and scored separately.Results: The symptom and endoscopy scores were significantly higher (p < 0.02 and < 0.0001 respectively) in group B post-operatively on 14th day and after 3 months as compared to group A. Conclusion:Microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery gives better results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Compare the Results of Endoscopic Sinus Surgery with and without Microdebrider in Patients of Nasal Polyposis

Singla¹,

Gulati²,

Singh³

et al. 2014

An International Journal Clinical Rhinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To provide for the drainage of the sinuses, mucosal preservation is essential, or when severely damaged, limited removal of the pathological changes should be attempted. Ciliated cells usually take 6 months to regenerate [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Sinus Surgery and Conventional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Nasal Polypi

Singh

Hazarika

Nayak

et al. 2011

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nasal polyposis is often encountered in rhinology practice. Those who fail conservative management, a definitive surgery is essential to achieve sufficient ventilation and drainage of the affected sinuses by using either microdebrider or conventional instruments for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). A prospective study was conducted on 40 cases of nasal polypi in a tertiary care hospital. 20 cases were operated by conventional endoscopic instruments and 20 using the microdebrider. 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 LundMackay scoring system and the data was statistically analysed. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical outcome for patients when either conventional endoscopic instruments or microdebrider was used. However, there was a significant symptomatic improvement in cases undergoing microdebrider FESS. Microdebrider assisted polypectomy is precise, relatively bloodless surgery though the precision depends on the surgeon's anatomical knowledge and operative skills. Study substantiates that these instruments are helpful but not a prerequisite for successful outcomes in FESS. The study re-emphasises the utility of the microdebrider to young learning FESS surgeons.

show abstract

“…In one animal study of a Draf IIb with a drill, there was increased osteoneogenesis and frontal ostium constriction after drilling in the frontal recess, although mucociliary clearance was not affected 6 . However, Moriyama et al 8 have demonstrated that sinus mucosa regenerated over bare bone does not have normal cilia. Therefore, it is feared that the resultant denuded bone that is left after the use of a drill in the frontal recess may not have the optimum function that could be achieved if the native mucosa was preserved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1967, Messerklinger 7 described the pattern of frontal sinus mucociliary clearance, which is down the lateral frontal recess wall. Consequently, the extensive frontal recess mucus membrane destruction that can be caused by drilling may damage frontal sinus mucous clearance and may create potential ostial stenosis (Moriyama et al, 8 in 1996, showed that normal functioning mucus membrane does not regenerate over bare bone). Therefore, a different method of performing a Draf III procedure (modified endoscopic intranasal Lothrop) is proposed that can be attempted before drilling in the tight confines of the frontal recess.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%