Comparison of virtual and conventional endoscopy of nose and paranasal sinuses

Abstract

We compared computed tomographic virtual rhinosinus endoscopy (VRS) and conventional fiberoptic endoscopy (FE) for the detection of inflammatory-obstructive rhinosinusal disease. We recruited 158 patients; 100 (group A) had inflammatory-obstructive rhinosinus disease, and 58 (group B) had a history of rhinosinus surgery. All patients underwent VRS within 2 to 6 hours of FE, and VRS was able to demonstrate the anatomic details of the nasal fossa and rhinopharynx with a high correspondence to FE. A satisfying representation of anatomic detail was found in both groups A and B. The VRS was able to visualize invasiveness of the endosinusal cavities, which was not accessible to FE. The VRS is a fast, relatively easy, and noninvasive technique that could be integrated into FE or used as an alternative when FE is unfeasible. Because of the ability to explore the sinus cavity, we suggest that virtual rhinosinusoscopy should be considered as the appropriate term, instead of virtual rhinoscopy.