Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To Study the Long Term Outcome of Endoscopic Septoplasty with Microdebrider Assisted Inferior Turbinoplasty (MAIT) Versus Medial Flap Turbinoplasty (MFT)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study the long term outcome of endoscopic septoplasty with microdebrider assisted inferior turbinoplasty (MAIT) versus medial flap turbinoplasty (MFT). The present study was conducted in the Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Amritsar. Patients with symptomatic persistent nasal obstruction were recruited from ENT outdoor clinics. The nasal obstruction was persistent despite medical therapy that included a minimum 4 weeks. The study was primarily a double blinded prospective randomized control study including 120 patients, where all patients enrolled at odd numbers were taken for endoscopic septoplasty with microdebrider assisted inferior turbinoplasty and all patients with even numbers were taken for endoscopic septoplasty with MFT. Patient-scored nasal obstruction (1–5) along with blindly assessed nasal airway patency ratings (1–4) was done at 3 and 24 months postoperatively. A total of 120 patients were recruited in the study. The mean ages of the MAIT and MFT groups were 28.61 ± 14.8 and 30.25 ± 8.36 years, respectively. Average follow-up period was 21.9 ± 6.3 months. Nasal obstruction was improved in both techniques at 3 months, but after long term follow up, it was highly significant for MFT along with improvement in preoperative symptoms p < 0.001. No patients complained of worsening of their obstruction. Nasal patency at 24 months, a significant proportion of patients had a greater nasal assessment by a blind assessor with 97.1% in MFT and 81.9% MAIT with mild to no obstruction. In MAIT group 16.6% had pain/discomfort, 23.6% had discharge which were the major complications, but crusting (MAIT 10% and MFT 3.3%), adhesions (MAIT 13.8% and MFT 1.6%). The medial flap inferior turbinoplasty (MFT) is technically straight forward procedure that provides long term more effective and satisfactory the patient in relieving nasal obstruction, without significant risk of complications. The long term follow up of MAIT is required as there was increase in need of decongestion and they might require second procedure as MFT.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Åkerlund A, Millqvist E, Öberg D, Bende M (2006) Prevalence of upper and lower airway symptoms: the Skövde population-based study. Acta Otolaryngol 126(5):483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Illum P (1997) Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: long-term results after randomized turbinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 254(1):S89–S92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger G, Hammel I, Berger R, Avraham S, Ophir D (2000) Histopathology of the inferior turbinate with compensatory hypertrophy in patients with deviated nasal septum. The Laryngoscope 110(12):2100–2105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rohrich RJ, Krueger JK, Adams JW, Marple BF (2001) Rationale for submucous resection of hypertrophied inferior turbinates in rhinoplasty: an evolution. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):536–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Larrabee YC, Kacker A (2014) Which inferior turbinate reduction technique best decreases nasal obstruction? The Laryngoscope 124(4):814–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Passàli D, Passàli FM, Passàli GC, Damiani V, Bellussi L (2003) Treatment of inferior turbinate hypertrophy: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112(8):683–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Huizing EH, De Groot JA (2003) Functional reconstructive nasal surgery, 943 illustrations & 23 tables. Thieme, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bergmark RW, Gray ST (2018) Surgical management of turbinate hypertrophy. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 51(5):919–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ikeda K, Oshima T, Suzuki M, Suzuki H, Shimomura A (2006) Functional inferior turbinosurgery (FITS) for the treatment of resistant chronic rhinitis. Acta Otolaryngol 126(7):739–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Delden MR, Cook PR, Davis WE (1999) Endoscopic partial inferior turbinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121(4):406–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Reefy H, Hopkins C (2013) Endoscopic assisted modified turbinoplasty with mucosal flap. J Laryngol Otol 127(7):728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nunez DA, Bradley PJ (2000) A randomised clinical trial of turbinectomy for compensatory turbinate hypertrophy in patients with anterior septal deviations. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 25(6):495–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yáñez C (1998) New technique for turbinate reduction in chronic hypertrophic rhinitis: intraturbinate stroma removal using the microdebrider. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 9(3):135–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Puterman M, Segal N, Joshua B (2012) Endoscopic, assisted, modified turbinoplasty with mucosal flap. J Laryngol Otol 126(5):525–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215112000163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barham HP, Thornton MA, Knisley A, Marcells GN, Harvey RJ, Sacks R (2016) Long-term outcomes in medial flap inferior turbinoplasty are superior to submucosal electrocautery and submucosal powered turbinate reduction. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6:143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cingi C, Ure B, Cakli H, Ozudogru E (2010) Microdebrider-assisted versus radiofrequency-assisted inferior turbinoplasty: a prospective study with objective and subjective outcome measures. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 30(3):138

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta A, Mercurio E, Bielamowicz S (2001) Endoscopic inferior turbinate reduction: an outcomes analysis. The Laryngoscope 111(11):1957–1959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis WE, Nishioka GJ (1996) Endoscopic partial inferior turbinectomy using a power microcutting instrument. J ENT 75:49–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee CF, Chen TA (2004) Power microdebrider-assisted modification of endoscopic inferior turbinoplasty: a preliminary report. Chang Gung Med J 27(5):359–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen YL, Tan CT, Huang HM (2018) Long-term efficacy of microdebrider-assisted inferior turbinoplasty with lateralization for hypertrophic inferior turbinates in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Laryngoscope 118(7):1270–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Neri G, Mastronardi V, Traini T, D’Orazio F, Pugliese M, Cazzato F (2013) Respecting nasal mucosa during turbinate surgery: end of the dogma? Rhinology 51(4):368–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wormald PJ (2013) Powered inferior turbinoplasty and endoscopic septoplasty, Chap. 4. In: Al-Helo S, Falih H, Jumma A (eds) Endoscopic sinus surgery: anatomy, three-dimensional reconstruction, and surgical technique, 3rd edn. Thieme, New York, pp 19–27

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kassab NA, Rifaat M, Madian Y (2012) Comparative study of management of inferior turbinate hypertrophy using turbinoplasty assisted by microdebrider or 980 nm diode laser. J Laryngol Otol 126:1231–1237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, 357, B- Block, New Amritsar, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Kulwinder Singh Sandhu

  2. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, H. No. 4580, Bhalla Colony, Chheharta, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Satinder Pal Singh

  3. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, GMC Hostel, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Oshin Thomas

  4. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, H. N. 328, Akash Avenue, FGC Road, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Priyanka Choudhary

  5. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, H. No. B-2, GMC Campus, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Arvinder Singh

  6. Department of ENT and Head Neck Surgery, GMC, GMC Campus, Amritsar, Punjab, India

    Manjit Singh

Authors
  1. Kulwinder Singh Sandhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satinder Pal Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oshin Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Priyanka Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arvinder Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manjit Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satinder Pal Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandhu, K.S., Singh, S.P., Thomas, O. et al. To Study the Long Term Outcome of Endoscopic Septoplasty with Microdebrider Assisted Inferior Turbinoplasty (MAIT) Versus Medial Flap Turbinoplasty (MFT). Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 74 (Suppl 2), 863–869 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-01936-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-01936-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation