Powered instrumentation and tissue effects in the nose and paranasal sinuses

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 22-26

  Hackman, Trevor G ^a   Ferguson, Berrylin J ^a  

^a University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Complications; Endoscopic sinus surgery; Microdebrider; Nose; Paranasal sinuses; Powered instrumentation

Indexed keywords

BRAIN INJURY; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID RHINORRHEA; CHOANA ATRESIA; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DRILL; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; EPISTAXIS; HUMAN; NOSE; NOSE INJURY; NOSE POLYP; NOSE RECONSTRUCTION; ORBIT INJURY; PARANASAL SINUS; POLYPECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

DEBRIDEMENT; ENDOSCOPES; ENDOSCOPY; HUMANS; MICROSURGERY; PARANASAL SINUS DISEASES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 13244259289     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00020840-200502000-00007     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Lawson W: The intranasal ethmoidectomy: evolution and an assessment of the procedure. Laryngoscope 1994; 104:1-49.
2. Setliff RC III: The hummer: a remedy for apprehension in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996; 29:95-104.
3. Becker D: Sinusitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2003; 13:175-194. This article provides a solid review of the history and indications for ESS.
4. Gendeh B, Long Y, Misiran K: Antrochoanal polyps: clinical presentation and the role of powered endoscopic polypectomy. Asian J Surg 2004; 27:22-25. Interesting comparison study suggesting benefit of powered instrumentation for ACP.
5. Friedman M, Tanyeri H, Lim J, et al. A safe, alternative technique for inferior turbinate reduction. Laryngoscope 1999; 109:1834-1837.
6. Rombaux Ph, de Toeuf C, Hamoir M, et al. Transnasal repair of unilateral choanal atresia. Rhinology 2003; 41:31-36. This article examines the utility of powered instrumentation for atretic disease.
7. Davis R, Raval J: Powered instrumentation for nasal bone reduction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003; 5:384-391. An insightful retrospective analysis of the remarkable benefits of powered instrumentation for rhinoplasty.
8. Graham S, Nerad J: Orbital complications in endoscopic sinus surgery using powered instrumentation. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:874-878. Dramatic case reports raising the alert about the potentially devastating orbital complications seen with powered instrumentation. This article brings to light the rapidity, severity, and depth of damage a microdebrider can cause if boundaries are violated.
9. May M, Levine HL, Mester SJ, et al. Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery: analysis of 2108 patients-incidence and prevention. Laryngoscope 1994; 104:1080-1083.
10. Church C, Chiu A, Vaughan W: Endoscopic repair of large skull base defects after powered sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129:204-209. Striking case reports chronicling the severity of skull base defects caused by microdebrider, as well as recommendations to avoid such complications. This article also discusses the possibility of repairing large defects endoscopically.
11. Bhatti MT, Giannoni CM, Raynor E, et al. Ocular motility complications after endoscopic sinus surgery with powered cutting instruments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 125:501-509.
12. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Committee on Devices: miniseminar on powered instrumentation and ESS. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology; September 21, 2004; New York, NY.
13. Zweig JL, Schaitkin BM, Fan CY, et al. Histopathology of tissue samples removed using the microdebrider. Am J Rhinol 2000; 14:27-32.
14. Yáñez C. New technique for turbinate reduction in chronic hypertrophic rhinitis: intraturbinate stroma removal using the microdobrider. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery 1998; 9:135-137.
15. Lee KC, Hwang PH, Kingdom TT: Surgical management of inferion turbinate hypertrophy in the office: three mucosal sparing techniques. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery 2001; 12:107-111.
16. Krause JH, Christmas DA Jr: Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgery: II: a comparative study. Ear Nose Throat J 1996; 75: 42-44.
17. Selivanova O, Kuehnemund M, Mann W, et al. Comparison of conventional instruments and mechanical debriders for surgery of patients with chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2003; 17:197-202. An interesting prospective review comparing nonpowered and powered instrumentation with respect to efficacy and complications which found no significant differences at late following between the two techniques.