Powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in management of sinonasal polyposis.

To conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of powered versus conventional endoscopic sinus surgery instruments in the management of sinonasal polyposis. Two hundred patients with sinonasal polyposis who failed conservative therapy were included in the study. They were equally randomized into powered and conventional instruments groups. A subjective visual analogue scale (VAS), endoscopic examination, saccharine clearance time and coronal CT were done preoperatively. Intraoperatively, the operative time, the surgical conditions and degrees of dryness of the operative field were carefully rated and recorded. Postoperatively, VAS, polyp grades, saccharine clearance time, the number of endoscopic debridement and time to mucosalization were recorded. Complications, smoothness of postoperative course were reported. Both groups experienced a significant improvement in the VAS with no statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between the two groups except for olfaction where there was significant improvement in the powered group. Similarly, the two groups demonstrated a significant improvement in the objective parameters including polyp grade and saccharine clearance time changes, but no significant difference between the two groups was found. The operative time as well as the surgical conditions and dryness of the operative field score were significantly better in the powered group. There was a tendency for improvement in the number of endoscopic debridement and time to mucosalization in powered group when compared to conventional instruments group, but this did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of postoperative synechiae was significantly lower in powered endoscopic group. Powered endoscopic sinus surgery offers a better therapeutic approach for patients with sinonasal polyposis when compared to endoscopic surgery with the conventional instruments. It provides a bloodless dry operative field with better visualization for a more precise, less traumatic procedure with minimal intraoperative complications and shorter operative time. Additionally, patients have a smoother postoperative course, less incidence of synechiae, with a tendency for a faster healing.