Evolution in the treatment of sinonasal inverted papilloma: Pedicle-oriented endoscopic surgery

被引:41
作者
Pagella, Fabio [1 ]
Pusateri, Alessandro [1 ]
Giourgos, Georgios [1 ,2 ]
Tinelli, Carmine [3 ]
Matti, Elina [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pavia, Fdn IRCCS Policlin San Matteo, Dept Otorhinolaryngol, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
[2] Univ Pavia, Program Expt Surg & Microsurg, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
[3] Policlin San Matteo, Fdn IRCCS, Clin Epidemiol & Biometr Unit, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
关键词
NASAL CAVITY; MANAGEMENT; EXPERIENCE; ATTACHMENT; SINUS; RESECTION; SITE;
D O I
10.2500/ajra.2014.28.3985
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Background: In the literature, the global endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) success in the treatment of sinonasal inverted papilloma (IP) is 95%. This study was designed to describe a conservative endoscopic approach, based on research of the tumor's pedicle and treatment concentrated on its site of attachment, and to compare the results of this technique with the outcome of standard endoscopic treatment. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the patients treated in our institution for paranasal inverted papilloma (IP), between 2002 and 2011 with a minimum of 18 months follow-up was performed. Group A received a standard ESS including whole sinus demucosization (maxillary, ethmoid, frontal, or sphenoid sinus) and bony wall drilling. Group B patients instead underwent pedicle-oriented endoscopic surgery (POES); in this group, bony demucosization and drilling were selectively conducted around the site of pedicle attachment of the tumor. Results: The cohort included 73 patients (median age, 60.5 years; median follow-up, 58 months). Group A/group B consisted of 37/36 patients. IP persistence-recurrence for group A/group B was 0/1 cases. Oncological success for global endoscopic/group A/group B was 98.6% (72/73)/100% (37/37)/97.2% (35/36). We noticed a significant difference in surgical operative time and postoperative complication rate among the groups, in favor of POES technique. Conclusion: Our data confirm the efficacy of the endonasal endoscopic treatment for sinonasal IP. Moreover, the even more conservative endoscopic treatment proposed (POES) seems to offer good control of the disease, shorter operating times, avoidance of unnecessary surgery with respect to uninvolved structures, and permits a follow-up aimed at the site of the pedicle attachment.
引用
收藏
页码:75 / 81
页数:7
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Predicting the site of attachment of sinonasal inverted papilloma
    Bhalla, R. K.
    Wright, E. D.
    [J]. RHINOLOGY, 2009, 47 (04) : 345 - 348
  • [2] Endoscopic resection of sinonasal inverted papilloma: A meta-analysis
    Busquets, JM
    Hwang, PH
    [J]. OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2006, 134 (03) : 476 - 482
  • [3] Surgical management of inverted papilloma: Approaching a new standard for surgery
    Carta, Filippo
    Blancal, Jean-Philippe
    Verillaud, Benjamin
    Tran, Hugo
    Sauvaget, Elisabeth
    Kania, Romain
    Herman, Philippe
    [J]. HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2013, 35 (10): : 1415 - 1420
  • [4] Sinonasal inverted papilloma: 84 patients treated by endoscopy and proposal for a new classification
    Dragonetti, A.
    Gera, R.
    Sciuto, A.
    Scottii, A.
    Bigoni, A.
    Barbaro, E.
    Minni, A.
    [J]. RHINOLOGY, 2011, 49 (02) : 207 - 213
  • [5] An evolution in the management of sinonasal inverting papilloma
    Han, JK
    Smith, TL
    Loehrl, T
    Toohill, RJ
    Smith, MM
    [J]. LARYNGOSCOPE, 2001, 111 (08) : 1395 - 1400
  • [6] The impact of modern techniques on the recurrence rate of inverted papilloma treated by endonasal surgery
    Heathcote, K. J.
    Nair, S. B.
    [J]. RHINOLOGY, 2009, 47 (04) : 339 - 344
  • [8] Kamel RH, 2012, RHINOLOGY, V50, P262, DOI [10.4193/Rhin11.259, 10.4193/Rhino11.259]
  • [9] KAMEL RH, 1992, ARCH OTOLARYNGOL, V118, P649
  • [10] Endoscopic versus open surgical interventions for inverted nasal papilloma:: a systematic review
    Karkos, P. D.
    Fyrmpas, G.
    Carrie, S. C.
    Swift, A. C.
    [J]. CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2006, 31 (06): : 499 - 503