Comparison between intranasal antrostomy and middle meatal antrostomy in the management of isolated maxillary sinusitis in the Rural Population: A prospective study

Abstract

Abstract OBJECTIVE. To compare the outcomes of Intranasal Antrostomy (INA) with Nasoantral Window-Plasty and endoscopic Middle Meatal Antrostomy (MMA) in patients with isolated chronic maxillary sinusitis using an elaborate and detailed set of parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS. All patients with clinically diagnosed chronic maxillary rhinosinusitis (unilateral/bilateral) were assessed based on radiological (Lund-Mackay Scoring System) and endoscopic evidence (Lund-Kennedy Scoring System). The Visual Analogue Scale was used to understand the severity of symptoms. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. One hundred patients were included in the study and divided into two equal groups of fifty each. Group 1 of patients underwent Intranasal Antrostomy with Nasoantral Window-Plasty and Group 2 underwent endoscopic Middle Meatal Antrostomy. All the surgeries were done in the same environment, under local anaesthesia and by the same surgeon. The parameters were noted before surgery and 8 weeks after surgery. RESULTS. MMA did about 6.82% better than INA in relieving symptoms, had 1.08% better CT image and 4.58% better in regards of nasal endoscopy findings. CONCLUSION. Although endoscopic Middle Meatal Antrostomy is a newer and more non-invasive procedure, the age-old Intranasal Antrostomy with Nasoantral Window-Plasty is still relevant in the management of chronic maxillary sinusitis in this modern age in our rural area.