Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic versus Conventional Sinus Surgery in Sinonasal Polyposis: A Comparative Study : Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic versus Conventional Sinus Surgery

Waqas Khalily; Aamna Durrani; Sarwat Hassan Syed; Amir Naveed; Zia Us Salam Qazi; Sabih Qamar

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v5i04.1374

Authors

Waqas Khalily Department of Ear Nose Throat, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Aamna Durrani Department of Ear Nose Throat, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Sarwat Hassan Syed Department of Ear Nose Throat, Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
Amir Naveed Department of Forensic Medicine, Amna Inayat Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan
Zia Us Salam Qazi Department of Ear Nose Throat, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Sabih Qamar Department of Ear Nose Throat, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert, Scotland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i04.1374

Keywords:

Sinonasal polyposis, Endoscopic surgery, Microdebrider, Conventional Surgery

Abstract

For sinonasal polyposis, functional endoscopic sinus surgery or conventional is the standard surgical approach. Microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery provides patients with a better therapeutic approach. Objective: To assess and compare intraoperative, loss of smell, synechiae formation and polyp recurrence between microdebrider and conventional method in nasal polyposis patients. Methods: Cohort Study was carried out in Department of Ear Nose Throat, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, 2022-2023. A total of sixty individuals with sinonasal polyposis, presenting in both genders, were included. Once written consent was obtained, the patient's comprehensive demographics were documented. Every patient was split evenly into two groups. Thirty patients each from Group A and Group B underwent endoscopic sinus surgery using traditional endoscopic tools and microdebrider respectively. Results were compared between the two groups in terms of synechiae production, length of operation, postoperative crusting, loss of smell, and intraoperative blood loss. Results: Age and gender differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (p-value >0.05). Regarding synechiae and loss of scent, there was no discernible difference between the two groups. Conclusions: The endoscopic sinus surgery with microdebrider was more effective for sinonasal polyposis as compared to conventional procedure

References

Köhler N. „PubMed Commons “: Beschreibung und Analyse von PubMeds neuer Kommentarfunktion. Bibliometrie-Praxis und Forschung. 2014 Oct; 3.

Ge W, Wang D, Chuang CC, Li Y, Rout R, Siddiqui S et al. Real-world cost of nasal polyps surgery and risk of major complications in the United States: a descriptive retrospective database analysis. ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research. 2023 Dec: 691-7. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S380411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S380411

Sharipov U. Modern approaches to the treatment of polyposis rhinosinusitis. Oriental Journal of Medicine and Pharmacology. 2022; 2(1): 116-23. doi: 10.37547/supsci-ojmp-02-01-08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37547/supsci-ojmp-02-01-08

Swarna Saravanan VC. Comparative study of microdebrider and conventional instruments in endoscopic sinus surgery for sinonasal polyposis (Doctoral dissertation, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai).

Singh R, Hazarika P, Nayak DR, Balakrishnan R, Gangwar N, Hazarika M. A comparison of microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polypi. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 2013 Jul; 65: 193-6. doi: 10.1007/s12070-011-0332-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0332-5

Bernstein JM, Lebowitz RA, Jacobs JB (1998) Initial report on post-operative healing after endoscopic sinus surgery with the microdebrider. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery. 118(6): 800–3. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70272-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70272-4

Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P (2006) Endoscopic sinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyps: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness. American Journal of Rhinology. 20(5): 506–19. doi: 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2923. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2923

Moriyama H, Kobayashi T, Kawano T, Okamoto M. Six-month Mucociliary Clearance Study. Rhinology. 1996; 34(2): 85-9.

Bernstein JM and Moharir VM. Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 1998; 31(5): 867-76.

Aziz T, Saleem M, Khan FR. Comparison of functional endoscopic sinus surgery with microdebriders and traditional instruments in sinonasal polyposis. Journal of Medical Sciences. 2017; 25(4): 571-5.

Varman PJ, Joseph A, Rajamani K. Comparison of outcomes between microdebrider-assisted and traditional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis: A retrospective analysis. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 2017; 69(1): 31-37.

Salam A, Shahid S, Khan MA. Efficacy of microdebrider-assisted functional endoscopic sinus surgery in sinonasal polyposis: A comparative study. Journal of Medical Research and Health Sciences. 2018; 1(2): 63-9.

Choe N, Park Y, Lee J. Comparison of intraoperative outcomes between microdebrider-assisted and traditional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis. Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology. 2019; 6(2): 1090-6.

Saafan ME, Barakat AA, Awad M. Impact of microdebrider in endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis: A five-year prospective randomized controlled study. Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology. 2012; 28(1): 10-18.

Gross WE and Becker DG. Microdebrider-assisted powered inferior turbinoplasty. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 1996; 7(2): 98-102. doi: 10.1016/S1043-1810(96)80039-X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1043-1810(96)80039-X

Singh B, Mohanty S, Chauhan A. Role of microdebrider in reducing intraoperative blood loss in nasal polyposis. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 2011; 63(2): 110-4.

Christmas DA and Krouse JH. Impact of microdebrider-assisted sinus surgery on intraoperative bleeding. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 1996; 114(2): 157-60.

Kumar A and Sindwani R. Bipolar microdebriders in nasal polyposis surgery: A retrospective case-control study. International Journal of Otolaryngology. 2009; 70(1): 81-5. doi: 10.1016/S1041-892X(09)79367-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-892X(09)79367-9

Stankiewicz JA. Synechiae after endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 1987; 20(2): 345-52.

Semih D. Microdebrider versus traditional functional endoscopic sinus surgery techniques: a retrospective analysis of 40 patients. Rhinology. 2002; 40(1): 20-5.

Selivanova OS and Chorna IV. Comparison of outcomes between mechanical debriders and traditional instruments in endoscopic sinus surgery: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 2003; 129(2): 192-7.