Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:58:52.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefit from the minimally invasive sinus technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

N Salama ,
R J Oakley ,
C J Skilbeck ,
N Choudhury  and
A Jacob
N Salama*
Affiliation:
Consultant ENT Surgeon at University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK
R J Oakley
Affiliation:
Spr in ENT in South ThamesLondon, UK
C J Skilbeck
Affiliation:
Sprs in ENT in North Thames, London, UK
N Choudhury
Affiliation:
Sprs in ENT in North Thames, London, UK
A Jacob
Affiliation:
Consultant ENT Surgeon at University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr N Salama, Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Lewisham, Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6LH, UK. E-mail: NYSALAMA@aol.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Sinus drainage is impeded by the transition spaces that the anterior paranasal sinuses drain into, not the ostia themselves. Addressing the transition spaces and leaving the ostia intact, using the minimally invasive sinus technique, should reverse chronic rhinosinusitis.

Aim:

To assess patient benefit following use of the minimally invasive sinus technique for chronic rhinosinusitis.

Method:

One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients underwent the minimally invasive sinus technique for chronic rhinosinusitis. Symptoms (i.e. blocked nose, poor sense of smell, rhinorrhoea, post-nasal drip, facial pain and sneezing) were recorded using a visual analogue scale, pre-operatively and at six and 12 weeks post-operatively. Patients were also surveyed using the Glasgow benefit inventory, one and three years post-operatively.

Results:

We found a significant reduction in all nasal symptom scores at six and 12 weeks post-operatively, and increased total quality of life scores at one and three years post-operatively (25.2 and 14.8, respectively).

Conclusion:

The patient benefits of treatment with the minimally invasive sinus technique compare with the published patient benefits for functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Keywords

Paranasal SinusesEndoscopyOtorhinolaryngological Surgical Procedures
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 2 , February 2009 , pp. 186 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Setliff, RC. Minimally invasive sinus surgery: the rationale and the technique. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:115–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Setliff, RC. The small-hole technique in endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1997;30:341–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Messerklinger, W. Endoscopy of the Nose. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1978;49–50Google Scholar
4Stammberger, H. Endoscopic endonasal surgery: concepts in treatment of recurring rhinosinusitis – II: surgical technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:147–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Catalano, P, Roffman, E. Outcome in patients with chronic sinusitis after the minimally invasive sinus technique. Am J Rhinol 2003;17:17–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Lund, VJ, Mackay, I. Outcome assessment of endoscopic sinus surgery. J R Soc Med 1994;87:70–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Oluwole, M, Russell, N, Tan, L, Gardiner, Q, White, P. A comparison of computerized tomographic staging systems in chronic sinusitis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;21:91–5Google ScholarPubMed
9Setliff, RC. The hummer: a remedy for apprehension in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29;95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Chiu, AG, Kennedy, DW. Disadvantages of minimal techniques for surgical management of chronic rhinosinusitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;12:38–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Catalano, PJ. Minimally invasive sinus technique: what is it? Should we consider it? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;12:34–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Khalil, HS, Nunez, DA. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004458. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD004458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Catalano, PJ, Strouch, M. The minimally invasive sinus technique: theory and practice. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2004;37:401–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Mehanna, H, Mills, J, Kelly, B, McGarry, GW. Benefit from endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:464–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed