Literature DB >> 12962188

Comparison of conventional instruments and mechanical debriders for surgery of patients with chronic sinusitis.

Oksana Selivanova1, Matthias Kuehnemund, Wolf J Mann, Ronald G Amedee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This article compares the use of the microdebrider as a form of powered instrumentation designed to decrease mucosal trauma with traditional surgical instruments for endonasal sinus surgery.
METHODS: Surgery was performed with the shaver or conventional instruments using an endonasal approach in 24 patients with bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis. Each patient served as his/her own control, meaning that one side was operated on with conventional instruments and the opposite side was operated on with the microdebrider to evaluate postoperative recovery, healing, and incidence of complications. They were stratified preoperatively and reassessed during 3- and 6-month follow-up and long-term (mean, 13 month) follow-up visits, which included nasal endoscopy, saccharin transport time, assessment of mucociliary transport times and clinical symptoms.
RESULTS: In this prospective randomized study we were unable to find a statistical difference (p > 0.05) in surgical outcome for patients when using either conventional instruments or mechanical debriders.
CONCLUSION: In the literature, mechanical debriders are supposed to provide for mucosal preservation and faster healing. However, for surgical outcome, the use of microdebriders in our study was not better than the results at 3-, 6-, and at 13-month follow-up visits when compared with conventional instruments. Synechia formation, patency of middle meatal antrostomy, and ostial reocclusion were the same in both groups. The incidence of polxyposis as a sign of recurrent or persistent infection was similar. Functional results using the saccharin transport time, as a marker of mucociliary function, or episodes of recurrent purulent secretions, again, were identical.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12962188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Rhinol        ISSN: 1050-6586


  8 in total

1.  [Rhinosinusitis guidelines--unabridged version: S2 guidelines from the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery].

Authors:  B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.284

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

Authors:  Magdy E Saafan; Sameh M Ragab; Osama A Albirmawy; Hosam S Elsherif
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  Rainer K Weber; Werner Hosemann
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-12-22

Review 4.  [Wound healing after endoscopic sinus surgery and postoperative management].

Authors:  A G Beule; W Hosemann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  A comparison of microdebrider assisted endoscopic sinus surgery and conventional endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polypi.

Authors:  Rohit Singh; Produl Hazarika; Dipak Ranjan Nayak; R Balakrishnan; Navneeta Gangwar; Manali Hazarika
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-11-30

Review 6.  Danger points, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  W Hosemann; C Draf
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-12-13

7.  Long-term effects of postoperative measures after sinus surgery.

Authors:  Vegard Bugten; Ståle Nordgård; Sverre Steinsvåg
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Twelve-year follow-up study after endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Authors:  Lien Calus; Nicholas Van Bruaene; Cedric Bosteels; Sarah Dejonckheere; Thibaut Van Zele; Gabrielle Holtappels; Claus Bachert; Philippe Gevaert
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 5.871

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.