Competitive study of conventional septoplasty versus endoscopic septoplasty
Objective: Traditional surgeries of the nasal septum improve the nasal airway but recent developments of endoscopic techniques have brought focus over several aspects of possible advantages over traditional techniques. These are due to better visualization and illumination, better accessibility and evaluation of exact pathology, the lesser need for unnecessary manipulation, resection and overexposure of the septal framework, and improving the scope for revision surgery if required later.
Materials and methods:A hundred cases of the deviated nasal septum (DNS) refractory to conservative medical treatment were divided into two groups and underwent corrective surgery for nasal septal deformity using both endoscopic and conventional techniques. These patients were divided into two groups who underwent septal surgery with two different techniques and the results were compared. All patients were followed up in the outpatient and were assessed for subjective improvement.Time taken for the study was four months.
Results:A hundred patients with deviated nasal septum were recruited into a study where the patients were divided into two groups, 50 cases in each group. Group I underwent conventional septoplasty while group II underwent an endoscopic septoplasty. The most prevalent complaint in the patients was nasal obstruction (88%), headache (60%), nasal discharge (54%) and sneezing (44%). The postoperative follow-up of the frequency of symptoms after surgery showed relive of nasal obstruction in 70% of cases of group I and in 92% of group II. However, the headache was relieved in 73% of cases of conventional septoplasty and 90% of cases of endoscopic septoplasty.
Conclusion: The clinical results of endoscopic septoplasty were found better as compared to conventional techniques with lesser complications and lesser periods of hospitalization.The use of endoscopic techniques offers lesser complications and lesser periods of hospitalization.
Sathyaki DC, Geetha C, Munishwara GB, Mohan M, Manjuanth K. A comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty. Indian JOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(2):155-161. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12070-013-0692-0.
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):27-29.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-009-0029-1.
Bothra R, Mathur NN. Comparative evaluation of conventional versus endoscopic septoplasty for limited septal deviation and spur. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123(7):737-741.doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022215108004192.
Jain L, Jain M, Chouhan AN, Harshwardhan R. Conventional septoplasty verses endoscopic septoplasty: a comparative study. People J Sci Res. 2011;4(2):24-28.
Champagne C, de Régloix SB, Genestier L, Crambert A, Maurin O, Pons Y. Endoscopic vs. conventional septoplasty: a review of the literature. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol, Head Neck Dis. 2016;133(1):43-46.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2015.11.004.
Salama MA. Endoscopic aided septoplasty versus conventional septoplasty. World J Med Sci. 2014;11(1):33-38.
Naik K. A novel way of trans-septal splint suturing without nasal packing for septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;67(1):48-50.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0763-x.
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):309-311.doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02907695.
Kaushik S, Vashistha S, Jain NK. Endoscopic vs conventional septoplasty: a comparative study. Headache. 2013;14(46.67):14-46.
Kulkarni SV, Kulkarni VP, Burse K, Bharath M, Bharadwaj C, Sancheti V. Endoscopic septoplasty: a retrospective analysis of 415 cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;67(3):248-254.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0880-1.
Beg MA, Qazi SM, Iqbal I. Endoscopic septoplasty: a prospective analysis. Open Sci JClin Med. 2015;3(6):212.
Copyright (c) 2020 Author (s). Published by Siddharth Health Research and Social Welfare Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.