OBJECTIVE: To quantify maxillary sinus volume and mucosal surface area (SA) that is accessible endoscopically via a middle meatal antrostomy and to explore the financial implications of using multiple disposable instruments for this procedure. METHODS: Eight cadaver maxillary sinuses configured with image guidance software were evaluated. In each sinus, a standard middle meatal antrostomy was created, through which curved microdebriders of 15, 40, 70, and 120° were placed. The SA and volume of the region accessible by each microdebrider tip was calculated. RESULTS: Mean maxillary sinus volume was 16.5 ± 2.5 cm(3) and mean SA was 31.0 ± 2.3 cm(2). The 15, 40, 70 and 120° microdebriders accessed an average of 10, 25, 41, and 66%, respectively, of the SA, and of 2, 9, 17, and 36%, respectively, of the volume. There was a trend toward improved accessibility of the superior half versus the inferior half of the maxillary sinus. When instruments of different degrees were combined to maximize accessibility, 81% of the SA of the sinus could be accessed. CONCLUSIONS: Microdebriders with increasing curvatures allowed for greater access of the maxillary sinus mucosa through an middle meatal antrostomy. No single microdebrider curvature or combination of curvatures reached the entirety of the maxillary sinus wall. Knowledge about the area of reach for these blades can lead to lower per procedure costs.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify maxillary sinus volume and mucosal surface area (SA) that is accessible endoscopically via a middle meatal antrostomy and to explore the financial implications of using multiple disposable instruments for this procedure. METHODS: Eight cadaver maxillary sinuses configured with image guidance software were evaluated. In each sinus, a standard middle meatal antrostomy was created, through which curved microdebriders of 15, 40, 70, and 120° were placed. The SA and volume of the region accessible by each microdebrider tip was calculated. RESULTS: Mean maxillary sinus volume was 16.5 ± 2.5 cm(3) and mean SA was 31.0 ± 2.3 cm(2). The 15, 40, 70 and 120° microdebriders accessed an average of 10, 25, 41, and 66%, respectively, of the SA, and of 2, 9, 17, and 36%, respectively, of the volume. There was a trend toward improved accessibility of the superior half versus the inferior half of the maxillary sinus. When instruments of different degrees were combined to maximize accessibility, 81% of the SA of the sinus could be accessed. CONCLUSIONS: Microdebriders with increasing curvatures allowed for greater access of the maxillary sinus mucosa through an middle meatal antrostomy. No single microdebrider curvature or combination of curvatures reached the entirety of the maxillary sinus wall. Knowledge about the area of reach for these blades can lead to lower per procedure costs.