The Laryngoscope · 2022
Changes in the Sphenoid Bone Encountered During the Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Approach.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jeong Chang Yeong, Hong Yong-Kil, Jeun Sin-Soo, Park Jae-Sung, Kim Soo Whan, Cho Jin Hee, Park Yong Jin, Kim Do Hyun, Kim Sung Won
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We estimated volume changes in the posterior bony wall of the sphenoid sinus, as well as alterations in nasal function (including olfactory function and subjective symptoms), after sphenoid mucosal repositioning using the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETSA).
METHODS: During 2010 and 2021, 13 patients underwent sphenoid mucosal repositioning during EETSA, while 24 patients (the control group) did not. Pre- and postoperative paranasal sinus computed tomography and the Mimics program were used to evaluate three-dimensional changes in the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus. All patients underwent the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test, the Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CCSIT), Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE), the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 (SNOT-20), and visual analog scale (VAS) evaluation.
RESULTS: The increase in the volume of the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus after surgery was objectively smaller in the sphenoid mucosal repositioning group than in the control group (P = .046). However, this did not affect olfactory function (as revealed by the CCCRC test or the CCSIT) or subjective symptoms (as revealed by the NOSE, SNOT-20, and VAS scores) (all P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Surgical closure via sphenoid mucosal repositioning during EETSA reduces the volume of the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus and facilitates re-operation. We suggest that sphenoid mucosal repositioning is appropriate during EETSA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 132:965-972, 2022.
METHODS: During 2010 and 2021, 13 patients underwent sphenoid mucosal repositioning during EETSA, while 24 patients (the control group) did not. Pre- and postoperative paranasal sinus computed tomography and the Mimics program were used to evaluate three-dimensional changes in the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus. All patients underwent the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test, the Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CCSIT), Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE), the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 (SNOT-20), and visual analog scale (VAS) evaluation.
RESULTS: The increase in the volume of the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus after surgery was objectively smaller in the sphenoid mucosal repositioning group than in the control group (P = .046). However, this did not affect olfactory function (as revealed by the CCCRC test or the CCSIT) or subjective symptoms (as revealed by the NOSE, SNOT-20, and VAS scores) (all P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Surgical closure via sphenoid mucosal repositioning during EETSA reduces the volume of the posterior wall of the sphenoid sinus and facilitates re-operation. We suggest that sphenoid mucosal repositioning is appropriate during EETSA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 132:965-972, 2022.