A Comparative Study Between Endoscopic Middle Meatal Antrostomy and Caldwell-Luc Surgery in the Treatment of Chronic Maxillary Sinusitis

  • K. Joe Jacob
  • Shibu George
  • S. Preethi
  • V. S. Arunraj
Original Article


Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has almost completely replaced the radical Caldwell-Luc approach. About 20 years after its origin of FESS a comparative study with Caldwell-Luc Surgery (C-L) definitely should be on cards to validate the previous results. To compare the effectiveness of endoscopic middle meatal antrostomy and Caldwell-Luc’s surgery in the management of Chronic Maxillary Sinusitis. This is a prospective randomized comparative study based on the analysis of eighty patients who were diagnosed to have chronic, unilateral, maxillary sinusitis and underwent surgery, after a failed trial of conservative management. One year after surgery 44% of the C-L patients and 89% of the FESS patients reported distinct improvement of their symptoms. Both are effective in the management of chronic sinusitis. Endoscopic middle meatal antrostomy is superior to Caldwell-Luc in intraoperative and postoperative parameters.


Maxillary sinusitis Middle meatal antrostomy Calwell-Luc’s surgery 


  1. 1.
    Messerklinger W (1978) Endoscopy of the nose. Urban & Schwarzenberg, BalimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wigand ME, Steinner W, Jaumann MP (1978) Endonasal sinus surgery with endoscopic control: from radical operation to rehabilition of mucosa. Endoscopy 10(4):255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Draf W (1983) Endoscopy of the paranasal sinuses. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stammberger H (1985) Endoscopic surgery for mycotic and chronic recurring sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 94(Suppl119):1–11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stammberger H (1986) Nasal and paranasal sinus endoscopy a diagnostic and surgical approach to recurrent sinusistis. Endoscopy 18(6):213–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hosemann W, Wigand ME, Nikol J (1989) Clinical and functional aspects of endonasal operation of the maxillary sinuses. HNO 37(6):225–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lund VJ (1988) Inferior meatal antrostomy: fundamental consideration of design and function. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 15:1–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy DW (1985) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery technique. Arch Otolaryngol 111:643–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnes E, Anke IM, Mair IWS (1985) A comparison between middle and inferior meatal antrostomy in the treatment of chronic maxillary sinus infection. Rhinology 23(1):65–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Penttila M, Rautiainen J, Punkander J (1992) Functional endoscopic and radical Sinus surgery in relation to allergy and ASA intolerance. Abstract Book XIV Congress European Rhinologic Society, Rome 10:145–145Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fairley JW (1994) A prospective randomized controlled trial of functional endoscopic Sinus surgery: endoscopic middle meatal antrostomy versus conventional endoscopic antrostomy. Interim results. Clin Otolaryngol 19:267Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Report of the Rhinosinusitis Task Force Committee Meeting. Alexandria, Virginia, August 17, 1996. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117(3 Pt 2):S1-68Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levine HL (1990) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: evaluation, surgery and follow-up of 250 patients. Laryngoscope 100:79–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ikeda K, Hirano K et al (1996) Comparison of complications between endoscopic sinus surgery and Caldwell-Luc operation. Tohuku J Exp Med 180(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Joe Jacob
    • 1
  • Shibu George
    • 1
  • S. Preethi
    • 1
  • V. S. Arunraj
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyGovernment Medical CollegeKottayamIndia

Personalised recommendations