4.5 Article

Modified Transnasal Endoscopic Medial Maxillectomy Through Prelacrimal Duct Approach

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 127, Issue 10, Pages 2205-2209

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26529

Keywords

Inverted papilloma; MTEMMPDA; endoscopic medial maxillectomy; maxillary sinus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We previously reported a modified endoscopic medial maxillectomy (modified transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy through prelacrimal duct approach [MTEMMPDA]) to resect inverted papilloma (IP), for which the inferior turbinate (IT) and nasolacrimal duct (ND) can be preserved. MTEMMPDA is a safe and effective method to obtain wide, straight access to the maxillary sinus (MS). However, there are few reported cases of patients who underwent MTEMMPDA, and even fewer of patients who underwent partial osteotomy of the apertura piriformis and the anterior wall of the MS. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of 51 patients who underwent MTEMMPDA. Study Design: Retrospective review. Methods: All patients who underwent MTEMMPDA at our hospital between January 2004 and December 2015 were included in this study. Results: Fifty-one patients with sinonasal IP in the MS underwent MTEMMPDA. Recurrence was seen in the MS of one patient (follow-up of 2-138 months). The IT remained unchanged in all 51 patients without atrophy. We have not observed epiphora, eye discharge, dry nose, or persistent crusting after this surgery. Although seven patients had numbness around the upper lip after surgery, this had disappeared by 1 year after surgery. Additional partial osteotomy of the apertura piriformis and the anterior wall of the MS were done in eight patients. Deformation of the external nose was not seen. Conclusion: This approach appears to be a safe and effective method to resect IP in the MS, even if there is additional partial osteotomy of the apertura piriformis and the anterior wall of the MS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available