Assessment of endoscopic and external approaches for frontal sinus lesions.

IF 1.4 Q2 Medicine
World Journal of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1002/wjo2.225
Moataz D Abouammo, Hossam S Elsherif, Medhat M H Mansour, Magdy E Saafan, Ricardo L Carrau, Mahmoud F Abdelaziz
{"title":"Assessment of endoscopic and external approaches for frontal sinus lesions.","authors":"Moataz D Abouammo, Hossam S Elsherif, Medhat M H Mansour, Magdy E Saafan, Ricardo L Carrau, Mahmoud F Abdelaziz","doi":"10.1002/wjo2.225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The use of endoscopic approaches has revolutionized the management of frontal sinus (FS) lesions. However, external approaches still play a significant role in select conditions. Various factors determine the decision to utilize endoscopic or external approaches such as the lesion location, extension, and patient's characteristics. The study aims to define certain FS indices for accurate selection of the most suitable approach for each patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A descriptive study was performed, based on endoscopic and external cadaveric dissections. Quantitative analyses including horizontal, anteroposterior diameters, and exposure area were performed for each approach using the navigation system. Patients with various FS lesions were included and their data were collected and evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen cadavers were analyzed. The average anteroposterior diameter on the midsagittal plane was 12.3 mm, distance from the midline to the lateralmost point was 21.8 mm on the right and 23.1 mm on the left side. The exposure area on the right side for Draf Ⅱa, and Draf Ⅱb were 64.6, 115.0 mm<sup>2</sup> while on the left side were 67.0, 125.0 mm<sup>2</sup>. For Draf Ⅲ, the exposure area was 377.0 mm<sup>2</sup>. A total of 41 patients were included in the clinical correlation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FS with a narrow anteroposterior diameter and longer horizontal diameter are difficult to access endoscopically, especially for lesions affecting the lateral recess of the sinus, and may require a combination with an external approach. FS approaches can be selected according to the sinus morphology of each patient, the surgeon's preferences, institutional resources, and the lesion's nature and extension.</p>","PeriodicalId":32097,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery","volume":"11 3","pages":"375-384"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12418322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjo2.225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The use of endoscopic approaches has revolutionized the management of frontal sinus (FS) lesions. However, external approaches still play a significant role in select conditions. Various factors determine the decision to utilize endoscopic or external approaches such as the lesion location, extension, and patient's characteristics. The study aims to define certain FS indices for accurate selection of the most suitable approach for each patient.

Methods: A descriptive study was performed, based on endoscopic and external cadaveric dissections. Quantitative analyses including horizontal, anteroposterior diameters, and exposure area were performed for each approach using the navigation system. Patients with various FS lesions were included and their data were collected and evaluated.

Results: Fifteen cadavers were analyzed. The average anteroposterior diameter on the midsagittal plane was 12.3 mm, distance from the midline to the lateralmost point was 21.8 mm on the right and 23.1 mm on the left side. The exposure area on the right side for Draf Ⅱa, and Draf Ⅱb were 64.6, 115.0 mm2 while on the left side were 67.0, 125.0 mm2. For Draf Ⅲ, the exposure area was 377.0 mm2. A total of 41 patients were included in the clinical correlation.

Conclusions: FS with a narrow anteroposterior diameter and longer horizontal diameter are difficult to access endoscopically, especially for lesions affecting the lateral recess of the sinus, and may require a combination with an external approach. FS approaches can be selected according to the sinus morphology of each patient, the surgeon's preferences, institutional resources, and the lesion's nature and extension.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

额窦病变的内窥镜和外入路评估。
目的:内镜入路的使用彻底改变了额窦(FS)病变的处理。然而,在某些条件下,外部途径仍然发挥着重要作用。决定采用内窥镜或外部入路的因素有很多,如病变的位置、范围和患者的特点。本研究旨在确定某些FS指标,以便为每位患者准确选择最合适的入路。方法:基于内窥镜和外部尸体解剖进行描述性研究。使用导航系统对每种入路进行定量分析,包括水平径、前后径和暴露面积。包括各种FS病变的患者,并收集和评估他们的数据。结果:对15具尸体进行了分析。中矢状面前后径平均12.3 mm,中线至右侧近侧点距离21.8 mm,左侧近侧点距离23.1 mm。draftⅡa和draftⅡb右侧暴露面积分别为64.6、115.0 mm2,左侧暴露面积分别为67.0、125.0 mm2。draftⅢ的暴露面积为377.0 mm2。共有41例患者被纳入临床相关性。结论:FS前后径狭窄,水平径较长,内镜下难以进入,特别是对影响窦侧隐窝的病变,可能需要联合外入路。FS入路可根据每位患者的鼻窦形态、外科医生的偏好、机构资源以及病变的性质和范围来选择。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
283
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信