Skip to main content
Log in

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

Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 Lund–Mackay 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christmas DA, Krouse JH (1996) Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgery II: a comparative study. Ear Nose Throat J 75(1):42–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. Am J Rhinol 20(5):506–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruggers S, Sindwani R (2009) Evolving trends in powered endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 42:789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Selivanova O, Kuehnemund M, Mann WJ, Amedee RG (2003) Comparison of conventional instruments and mechanical debriders for surgery of patients with chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol 17(4):197–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandra RK, Conley DB, Kern RC (2009) Evolution of the endoscope and endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 42:747–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruggers S, Sindwani R (2009) Innovations in microdebrider technology and design. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 42:781–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lund VJ, Mackay IS (1993) Staging in rhinosinusitis. Rhinology 107:183–184

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moriyama H, Yanagi K, Ohtori N et al (1996) Healing process of sinus mucosa after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 10:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bernstein JM, Lebowitz RA, Jacobs JB (1998) Initial report on post operative healing after endoscopic sinus surgery with the microdebrider. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118(6):800–803

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhatti MT, Gionnoni CM, Raynor E, Monshizadeh R, Levine LM (2001) Ocular motility complications after endoscopic sinus surgery with powered cutting instruments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 25:501–509

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berenholz L, Kessler A, Sarfaty S et al (1999) Subarachnoid hemorrhage: a complication of endoscopic sinus surgery using powered instrumentation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:665–667

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Setliff RC, Parsons DS (1994) The “hummer”: new instrumentation for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 8:275–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sauer M, Lemmens W, Vauterin T et al (2007) Comparing the microdebrider and standard instruments in endoscopic sinus surgery: a double-blind randomized study. B-ENT 3:1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutay Semih (2002) Microdebrider and complications in endoscopic surgery for nasal polyposis. Turkish Archives of Otolaryngology 40(2):110–114

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar N, Sindwani R (2009) Bipolar microdebrider reduces operative time and blood loss during nasal polyp surgery. Laryngoscope 119:43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zweig JL, Schaitkin BM, Fan CY, Barnes EL (1996) Histopathology of tissue samples removed using the microdebrider technique: implications for endoscopic sinus surgery. HNO 44(2):98–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Medical students posted in the department of ENT-HNS KMC, Manipal. Harpavan Sandha, Sonali Arora, Vipul Jain, Abhishek Bharadwaj for helping with the review of literature.

Conflict of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rohit Singh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Singh, R., Hazarika, P., Nayak, D.R. et al. A Comparison of Microdebrider Assisted Endoscopic Sinus Surgery and Conventional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Nasal Polypi. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65, 193–196 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0332-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0332-5

Keywords

Navigation