DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20221883
Published: 2022-07-26

A comparative study of efficacy and outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional technique in septoturbinoplasty

Ishan Sardesai, D. R. Nayak, Aditi Ravindra, Shama Shetty

Abstract


Background: Septal deviation is a very common clinical entity which often affects nasal aesthetics and functionality requiring surgical correction. With the advent of rigid endoscopy, newer techniques of endoscopic surgery have come into place that are replacing conventional methods. The aim of the study was to compare the two septoturbinoplasty procedures (endoscopic and conventional) using both objective and subjective data and thereby determine the advantages an endoscope provides during nasal septal surgery.

Methods: It is a prospective comparative study of 56 patients out of which 28 patients underwent endoscopic septoturbinoplasty and the remaining 28 underwent conventional septoturbinoplasty. Outcomes measured were improvement of nasal symptoms following the surgery based on subjective questionnaire data collected, operation time and post-operative complications.  

Results: The mean NOSE questionnaire scores pre-operatively were 67.32±12.4 for the conventional group and 64.64±14.9 for the endoscopic group. The post-operative scores were 6.43±7.2 for the conventional group and 4.64±6.8 for the endoscopic group. Similarly, the operative time as well as the rate of post-operative complications were lesser in the endoscopic technique compared to the conventional technique.

Conclusions: Both conventional and endoscopic techniques are effective in correcting the septal deviation as proved by significant subjective improvement in patient symptom scores post-surgery. The use of an endoscope, on the other hand, results in a shorter operation time and a lower complication rate after surgery.


Keywords


Rhinology, Septoplasty, Endoscopic surgery, Septoturbinoplasty

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hong CJ, Monteiro E, Badhiwala J, Lee J, de Almeida JR, Vescan A, et al. Open versus endoscopic septoplasty techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American J Rhinology Amp Allergy. 2016;30(6):436-42.

Beeson WH. The nasal septum. Otolaryngologic Clinics North Am. 1987;20(4):743-67.

Chen YY, Huang TC. Outcome of Septoplasty with Inferior Turbinectomy as an In-patient or Out-patient Procedure. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):7573.

Dolan RW. Endoscopic septoplasty. Facial Plastic Surg. 2004;20(3):217-21.

Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(3):283-90.

Nayak DR, Balakrishnan R, Murty KD, Hazarika P. Endoscopic septoturbinoplasty: Our update series. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;54(1):20-4.

Pons Y, Champagne C, Genestier L, de Régloix BS. Endoscopic septoplasty: Tips and pearls. European Annals Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(6):353-6.

Hwang PH, McLaughlin RB, Lanza DC, Kennedy DW. Endoscopic septoplasty: indications, technique, and results. Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Official J Am Academy Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 1999;120(5):678-82.

Paradis J, Rotenberg BW. Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40(1):S28-S33.

Gulati SP, Wadhera R, Ahuja N, Garg A, Ghai A. Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;61(1):27-9.

Gupta M, Motwani G. Comparative study of endoscopic aided septoplasty and traditional septoplasty in posterior nasal septal deviations. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;57(4):309-11.

Sathyaki DC, Geetha C, Munishwara GB, Mohan M, Manjuanth K. A comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(2):155-61.

Bothra R, Mathur NN. Comparative evaluation of conventional versus endoscopic septoplasty for limited septal deviation and spur. J Laryngol Otology. 2009;123(7):737-41.