The subjective and objective outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis using microdebrider versus conventional instruments: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundSince the evolution of the microdebrider technology and its modulations to be suitable for rhinology, many attempts were carried out to replace the conventional instruments with microdebrider especially in cases of nasal polyposis. Also, many studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of both tools in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Those studies focused on objective outcomes as the duration of surgery and the amount of blood loss.Aim of the studyComparing the efficacy of microdebrider in cases of resistant chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis to conventional instruments. Analysis of subjective outcomes is mainly the quality of life of our patients, and not neglecting the objective outcomes but analyzing them thoroughly.MethodThis is a randomized controlled clinical trial, conducted on 100 patients which were diagnosed to have resistant chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis. We used the microdebrider in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for 50 patients and conventional instruments for the other 50 cases. We compared the operative time, amount of blood loss, and postoperative improvement of quality of life, the presence of adhesions, crustations, and complications, or recurrence of nasal polyposis in both groups.ResultsWe found significant differences in favor of microdebrider mainly in the duration of surgery and the amount of blood loss. Patient satisfaction was better in the microdebrider group, especially in the short-term follow-up, while the postoperative clinical scores were better in the long run.ConclusionUsing the microdebrider in dealing with nasal polyposis is much preferable to conventional instruments. For patients, they feel much better in a shorter duration postoperatively. For surgeons, the manipulations are easier, and the operative field is bloodless and clear.