An International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Clinics

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2024 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Septoplasty and Conventional Septoplasty Outcomes

Manik Rao Kulkarni, Sushmitha V Badiger, Nasreenbanu Khadarnayakar

Keywords : Conventional septoplasty, Endoscopic septoplasty, NOSE score, Postoperative complications

Citation Information : Kulkarni MR, Badiger SV, Khadarnayakar N. A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Septoplasty and Conventional Septoplasty Outcomes. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Clin 2024; 16 (1):67-71.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10003-1436

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Background: Sinonasal illness frequently results in a significant reduction in quality of life, more so in chronic situations. The most frequent issue is a deviated nasal septum (DNS). This study compared the postoperative results for patients who underwent traditional septoplasty and endoscopic septoplasty. Methods: A prospective study conducted on patients, attending the Department of ENT on an in-patient basis who are diagnosed to have DNS, and other associated pathologies like chronic rhinosinusitis, polyps, and nasal cavity mass were selected on a simple random basis for this study from March 2020 to August 2021. The patients were subjected for either conventional/endoscopic septoplasty, postoperatively patients followed up, and assessed for symptom relief [Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score] and other complications. Results: One of the most common causes of nasal obstruction is a DNS. In our study, second-decade age was more commonly affected, men are more common (60%). Type III and type V are the most common endoscopic type of septal deviations according to the Jain Bhalerao (JB) endoscopic classification. The NOSE questionnaire was given to all patients preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 3 months to both the study group, and p-value was calculated, which was <0.001 when compared between conventional septoplasty and endoscopic septoplasty, which indicates it as highly significant. Conclusion: Endoscopic septoplasty is better than conventional septoplasty with regards to better visualization, good access to the posterior part of the septum, better illumination, limited resection and postoperative improvement, and complications are less in comparison with conventional septoplasty.

PDF Share
  1. Jain S, Bhalerao P, Singh C. A new endoscopic and anatomical classification of deviated nasal septum with clinical relevance. Med Sci 2020;24(104):2544–2554.
  2. Shukla RH, Nemade SV, Shinde KJ. Comparison of visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score in evaluation of post septoplasty patients. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;6(1):53–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.06.00.
  3. Dodia MN, Shah N, Shah A. Comparative study of endoscopic septoplasty without and with endonasal-septal suturing techniques. J res med dent sci 2015;3(3):219. DOI:10.5455/jrmds.20153313.
  4. Moore M, Eccles R. Objective evidence for the efficacy of surgical management of the deviated septum as a treatment for chronic nasal obstruction: a systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol 2011;36:106e113. DOI:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02279.x.
  5. Jain L, Jain M, Chauhan AN, et al. Conventional septoplasty verses endoscopic septoplasty: a comparative study. People J Sci Res 2011;4(2):24–28.
  6. Nayak DR, Balakrishnan R, Murthy KD. An endoscopic approach to the deviated nasal septum – a preliminary study. J Laryngol. Otol 1998;112(10):934–939. DOI: 10.1017/s0022215100142124.
  7. Lanza DC, Kennedy DW, Zinreich SJ. Nasal endoscopic and its surgical applications. In: Lee KJ. Essential Otolaryngology: head and neck surgery, 5th edn.
  8. Gulati SP, Wadhera R, Ahuja N, et al. Comparative evaluation of endoscopic with conventional septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;61(1):27–29. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-009-0029-1.
  9. Harley DH, Powitzky ES, Duncavage J. Clinical outcomes for the surgical treatment of sinonasal headache. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(3):217–221. DOI: 10.1016/S0194-5998(03)00623-5.
  10. Garzaro M, Dell ‘Era V, Riva G, et al. Endoscopic versus conventional septoplasty: objective/subjective data on 276 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276(6):1707–1711. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05393-w.
  11. Gupta N. Endoscopic septoplasty. Indian j Otolaryngol Head Neck surg 2005;57(3):240–243. doi: 10.1007/BF03008021.
  12. Nawaiseh S, Al-Khtoum N. Endoscopic septoplasty: retrospective analysis of 60 cases. J Pak Med Assoc 2010;60(10):796–798. PMID: 21381603.
  13. Shah J, Roxbury CR, Sindwani R. Techniques in septoplasty: traditional versus endoscopic approaches. Otolaryngol clin North Am 2018;51(5):909–917. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2018.05.007.
  14. Prepageran N, Lingham OR. Endoscopic septoplasty: the open book method. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 62(3):310–312. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-010-0090-9.
  15. ul Haq A, Bansal C, Pandey AK, et al. Key considerations in practices and principles of endoscopic septoplasty: Lessons, mistakes and future. Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol 2021;27(2):170–176. DOI: 10.3329/bjo.v27i2.56364t.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.