Prevention and management of intra-operative complications in maxillary sinus augmentation: A review.

Pascal Valentini, Claudio Stacchi
{"title":"Prevention and management of intra-operative complications in maxillary sinus augmentation: A review.","authors":"Pascal Valentini, Claudio Stacchi","doi":"10.1111/cid.13397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.

上颌窦隆起术中并发症的预防和处理:综述。
上颌窦底抬高术通常有两种不同的方法:外侧入路是在上颌窦外侧壁上开一个骨窗,使患者可以直接进入窦腔进行骨膜抬高和随后的移植物置入;而经鼻骨入路被认为是创伤较小的入路。本文旨在根据文献介绍如何预测、避免和处理这两种方法可能出现的术中并发症。这两种方法最常见的并发症都是窦膜穿孔。据报道,外侧入路的平均穿孔率为 15.7% 到 23.1%,但由于可视性更好,与经蝶入路相比,处理起来更容易。据报道,经嵴入路的平均穿孔率较低(3.1%-6.4%),但需要注意的是,由于该技术的盲目性,大量穿孔无法被发现和处理。鼻窦宽度和颊壁厚度等解剖参数可能是一种方法而非另一种方法的风险因素。由于无法评估施奈德膜的阻力,一旦发生穿孔,经骨途径更有可能导致感染性并发症。其他的并发症,如血管损伤的风险,只有侧方入路才会遇到,而剖开肺泡-腹腔动脉就可以轻松避免。对这两种方法而言,预防都是至关重要的,包括分析解剖结构、掌握手术技巧,以及与耳鼻喉科医生合作处理术中并发症可能造成的感染后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信