<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><bold>OBJECTIVE</bold>. To study and compare the benefits of microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery in terms of subjective and objective improvement in symptoms of nasal polyposis.<bold>MATERIAL AND METHODS</bold>. This study involved 60 patients with bilateral sinonasal polyposis scheduled to undergo Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group A -Conventional endoscopic sinus surgery and Group B -Microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery.<bold>RESULTS</bold>. There was a significant difference in the mean VAS at 3 months postoperatively in Group B, but no significant difference at 6 months postoperatively following either of the two methods. The mean time for surgery (p&lt;0.01) and the mean intraoperative blood loss (p&lt;0.01) were significantly lower in Group B.<bold>CONCLUSION</bold>. A well-trained surgeon with proper anatomical knowledge, good instruments, hypotensive anaesthesia, minimal mucosal injury and regular proper follow-up will have similar postoperative results with both methods.</abstract>

OBJECTIVE. To study and compare the benefits of microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery in terms of subjective and objective improvement in symptoms of nasal polyposis.MATERIAL AND METHODS. This study involved 60 patients with bilateral sinonasal polyposis scheduled to undergo Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group A -Conventional endoscopic sinus surgery and Group B -Microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery.RESULTS. There was a significant difference in the mean VAS at 3 months postoperatively in Group B, but no significant difference at 6 months postoperatively following either of the two methods. The mean time for surgery (p<0.01) and the mean intraoperative blood loss (p<0.01) were significantly lower in Group B.CONCLUSION. A well-trained surgeon with proper anatomical knowledge, good instruments, hypotensive anaesthesia, minimal mucosal injury and regular proper follow-up will have similar postoperative results with both methods.

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

Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Jahra Hospital

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute

Al Azhar Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital

Romanian Journal of Rhinology

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

OBJECTIVE. To study and compare the benefits of microdebrider-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery in terms of...

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

Published Online: May 04, 2019

Page range: 91 - 95

Received: Jan 15, 2019

Accepted: Mar 11, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rjr-2019-0011

Keywords
nasal polyps, microdebrider, surgical blood loss, operative time

© 2019 Ramiya Ramachandran Kaipuzha et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

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

Published Online: May 04, 2019

Page range: 91 - 95

Received: Jan 15, 2019

Accepted: Mar 11, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rjr-2019-0011

Keywordsnasal polyps, microdebrider, surgical blood loss, operative time

© 2019 Ramiya Ramachandran Kaipuzha et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Keywords
nasal polyps, microdebrider, surgical blood loss, operative time