Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in the management of sinonasal polyposis. Two hundred patients with sinonasal polyposis who failed conservative therapy were included in the study. They were equally randomized into powered and conventional instruments groups. A subjective visual analogue scale (VAS), endoscopic examination, saccharine clearance time and coronal CT were done preoperatively. Intraoperatively, the operative time, the surgical conditions and degrees of dryness of the operative field were carefully rated and recorded. Postoperatively, VAS, polyp grades, saccharine clearance time, the number of endoscopic debridement and time to mucosalization were recorded. Complications, smoothness of postoperative course were reported. Both groups experienced a significant improvement in the VAS with no statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between the two groups except for olfaction where there was significant improvement in the powered group. Similarly, the two groups demonstrated a significant improvement in the objective parameters including polyp grade and saccharine clearance time changes, but no significant difference between the two groups was found. The operative time as well as the surgical conditions and dryness of the operative field score were significantly better in the powered group. There was a tendency for improvement in the number of endoscopic debridement and time to mucosalization in powered group when compared to conventional instruments group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of postoperative synechiae was significantly lower in powered endoscopic group. Powered endoscopic sinus surgery offers a better therapeutic approach for patients with sinonasal polyposis when compared to endoscopic surgery with the conventional instruments. It provides a bloodless dry operative field with better visualization for a more precise, less traumatic procedure with minimal intraoperative complications and shorter operative time. Additionally, patients have a smoother postoperative course, less incidence of synechiae, with a tendency for a faster healing.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becker SS (2009) Surgical management of polyps in the treatment of nasal airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(2):377–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stammberger H (1991) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. BC Decker, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gross CW, Becker DG (1996) Power instrumentation in endoscopic sinus surgery. Oper Tech Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg 7(3):236–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lund VJ, Kennedy DW (1995) Quantification for staging sinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 167:17–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mackay IS, Lund VJ (1997) Imaging and staging. In: Lildholdt T, Mygind N (eds) Nasal polyposis. An inflammatory disease and its treatment. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jaccobi KE, Bohn BE, Rickauer JA, Jaccobi C, Hemmerling TM (2000) Moderate controlled hypotension with sodium nitroprusside does not improve surgical conditions or decrease blood loss in endoscopic sinus surgery. J Clin Anaesth 12:202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Badia L, Lund V (2001) Topical corticosteroids in nasal polyposis. Drugs 61(5):573–578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Waguespack R (1995) Mucociliary clearance patterns following endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 105(7 Pt 2 Suppl 71):1–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stankiewicz JA (1987) Complications of intranasal endoscopic ethmoidectomy. Laryngoscope 97:1270–1273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lazar RH, Younis RT, Long TE (1993) Functional endonasal sinus surgery in adults and children. Laryngoscope 103:1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaskins RE (1994) Scarring in endoscopic ethmoidectomy. Am J Rhinol 8(271):274

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacobs JB, Gittelman P, Holliday R (1990) Endoscopic sinus surgery for ostiomeatal disease. Am J Rhinol 4:41–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruggers S, Sindwani R (2009) Evolving trends in powered endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(5):789–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruggers S, Sindwani R (2009) Innovations in microdebrider technology and design. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(5):781–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ecevit MC, Sutay S, Erdag TK (2008) The microdébrider and its complications in endoscopic surgery for nasal polyposis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 37(2):160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise with any organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Tanta University Hospitals, 61 Kafr Esam Street, El Nadi Square, Tanta, Egypt

    Magdy E. Saafan, Sameh M. Ragab, Osama A. Albirmawy & Hosam S. Elsherif

  2. Taiba Hospitals, Kuwait, Kuwait

    Sameh M. Ragab

Authors
  1. Magdy E. Saafan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sameh M. Ragab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osama A. Albirmawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hosam S. Elsherif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magdy E. Saafan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saafan, M.E., Ragab, S.M., Albirmawy, O.A. et al. Powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270, 149–155 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-1969-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-1969-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation