Efficiency of Different Approaches in Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Comparative...

Current research compared traditional FESS, balloon sinuplasty, and powered instruments for CRS efficiency.

A prospective comparison analysis of 150 CRS patients who received FESS. The surgical method divided the patients into three groups: Group A (conventional FESS, n = 50), Group B (balloon sinuplasty, n = 50), and Group C (powered instrumentation, n = 50). Primary outcome measures included symptom alleviation, measured preoperatively and six months postoperatively using the "22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22)". Preoperative and six-month postoperative "Short Form 36 (SF-36)" Health Surveys assessed postoperative complications and the quality of life.

Balloon sinuplasty relieved symptoms better than FESS and powered instrumentation. Mean SNOT-22 scores reduced by 62.1% in the balloon sinuplasty group, much higher than the standard FESS and powered instrumentation groups (49.1% and 45.8%, respectively) (P < 0.001). Balloon sinuplasty had fewer postoperative problems than FESS and powered instrumentation, including bleeding, infection, and synechia.

Balloon sinuplasty treats CRS better than FESS and powered instrumentation and has fewer postoperative sequelae. These data imply that balloon sinuplasty may be a preferred FESS surgical strategy for CRS, but patient-specific characteristics and disease severity must be considered. Current findings need to be confirmed by larger studies with longer follow-up periods to determine the best FESS surgical strategy for CRS.