Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Sinonasal Polyposis: A Comparative Study Microdebrider Assisted Fess V/S Conventional Fess
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Govt. Medical College, Vidisha, MP
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Govt. Medical College, Vidisha, MP
- 3. M.S. ENT, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior
- 4. Statistician, Department of Community Medicine, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Govt. Medical College, Vidisha, MP
Description
Objective: To study & compare the benefits of microdebrider- assisted FESS VS conventional FESS in terms of subjective as well as objective improvement in symptoms of nasal polyposis. Material & Methods: This study involves total 150 patients with bilateral nasal polyp scheduled to undergo FESS. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group A- Conventional FESS and Group B- Microdebrider-assisted FESS. Results: In our Study male found to be predominant with age distribution of the patients ranged from 13 to 50 years. Conclusion: we can achieve good postoperative results in both groups provided a well skilled & trained surgeon with proper anatomical knowledge, good instruments, hypotensive anaesthesia, minimal mucosal trauma & regular follow up.
Abstract (English)
Objective: To study & compare the benefits of microdebrider- assisted FESS VS conventional FESS in terms of subjective as well as objective improvement in symptoms of nasal polyposis. Material & Methods: This study involves total 150 patients with bilateral nasal polyp scheduled to undergo FESS. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group A- Conventional FESS and Group B- Microdebrider-assisted FESS. Results: In our Study male found to be predominant with age distribution of the patients ranged from 13 to 50 years. Conclusion: we can achieve good postoperative results in both groups provided a well skilled & trained surgeon with proper anatomical knowledge, good instruments, hypotensive anaesthesia, minimal mucosal trauma & regular follow up.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article151.pdf
Files
(1.3 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:c4d72b392ac0bfdbecd99a3bd1c8f05c
|
1.3 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-07-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article151.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Mygind N, Lund JV, Jones RJ. Nasal polyposis and surgical management of rhinosinusitis, In: Gleeson M, Browning GG, Burton JM et al. Scott &Brown's otorhinolaryngology, head & neck surgery,Edward Arnold publisher Ltd 2008, 7th edition; 2:1549-50,1552-56, 1480-81. 2. Davidson TM, Murphy C, Mitchell M, Smith C, Light M. Management of chronic sinusitis in cystic fibrosis. Lryngoscope. 1995; 105: 354-358. 3. Nores JM, Avan P, Bonafils P. Medical management of nasal polyposis: A study in a series of 152 consecutive patients. Rhinology 2003;41: 97-102. 4. Marks S.C, Endoscopic sinus surgery.In: Marks S.C. Textbook on nasal and sinus surgery. W.B. Saunders company. 2000; 119:125-26: 140-141. 5. Larsen K, TOS M. The estimated incidence of symptomatic nasal polyposis. Acta otolaryngol. 2002; 122 (2): 1179-82. 6. Drake LB, Lawe D, Swanston A, Grace A. Clinical profile and recurrence of nasal polyp. J. Laryngol otol. 1984; 98 (8): 783-93. 7. Bettega S, Soccol AT, Koerner HN, Mocellin M. Epidemiological Analysis in patients with nasal polyps Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2007; 11(3): 243-24. 8. Ghera B et al. Int J. Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surgery. 2016 Oct; 2(4): 197-204. 9. Bakari A, Afolabi OA, Adoga AA, Aliya M Kodiya, Babagana M Ahamed. Clinicopathological Profile of sinonasal masses: An experience in national ear care center Kaduna, Nigeria. BMC Research Notes. 2010; 3:186-96. 10. DufourX, Bedier A, Ferrie JC, Gohler C, Klossek JM. Diffuse nasal polyposis and endonasal surgery: Long term results, A 65 cases study. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(11); 1982-7. 11. Poetkar DM, Mendolia LS, Smith TL. Outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis associated with sinonasal polyposis. Am J Rhinol. 2007; 21(1):84-8. 12. Magdy ES, Samesh MR, Osama A, Albirmawy HS. Powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis. European Arch Otorhinolaryngo. 2013; 270(1): 149-55. 13. Kakkar V, Sharma C, Singla P, Gulati A, Singh S, Malik P. To comapare the results of endoscopic sinus surgery with and without microdebrider in patients of nasal polyposis. Clin Rhinol Int J. 2014:7(2):61-3. 14. Christmas DA, Krouse JH. Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgery II. A comparative study Ear Nose Throat J. 1996:75(1) 42-44. 15. Singh R, Hazarika P, Nayak D, Balakrishnan R, Gangwar N, Hazarika M, Acomparison of microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyp: Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 30 Nov 2011; 1-4. 16. Krouse JH, Christmas DA, Jr.Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgeryII: A comparative study Ear, Nose Throat J. 1996; 75(1): 42-44. 17. Saafan ME, Ragab SM, Albirmawy OA, Elsherif HS Powered V/S conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Apr 10. 18. Stankiewicz JA. Complications of intranasal endoscopic ethmoidectomy Laryngoscope. 1987; 97: 1270-1273. 19. Selivanova O, Kuehnemund M, Mann WJ, Amedee RG. Comaprison of conventional instruments and mechanical debriders for surgery of patients with chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol. 2003; 17 (4): 197-202. 20. Bernstein JM, Lebowitz RA, Jacobs JB.Intial report on post-operative healing after endoscopic sinus surgery with the microdebrider. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;118(6); 800-803.