OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable technique for sinoscopic examination of the ventral conchal (VCS) and rostral maxillary sinuses (RMS) of horses STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study ANIMALS: Cadaveric equine heads (n=40) METHODS: The VCS and RMS were examined endoscopically using: (1) rostral trephination of the RMS (rostral RMS approach); (2) caudal trephination of the RMS (caudal RMS approach); (3) conchofrontal sinus (CFS) trephination followed by RMS trephination at a site identified by endoscopic transillumination of the maxillary bone at the most rostral aspect of the caudal maxillary sinus (CMS) (light-indicated RMS approach); (4) CFS trephination with fenestration of the ventral conchal bulla (VCB; frontal VCB approach); (5) CMS trephination with VCB fenestration (caudal VCB approach); and (6) CFS and CMS trephination with VCB fenestration (combined VCB approach). RESULTS: Success in observing the rostral and caudal aspects of the VCS and RMS with each approach were: (1) rostral RMS approach (0 horses; 16 horses [40%]); (2) caudal RMS approach (0 horses; 11 horses [28%]); (3) light-indicated RMS approach (3 horses [8%]; 24 horses [60%]); (4) frontal VCB approach (24 horses [60%]; 29 horses [73%] respectively); (5) caudal VCB approach (16 horses [40%] both structures); and (6) combined VCB approach (27 horses [68%]; 35 horses [88%]). CONCLUSIONS: Trephination into the CFS coupled with fenestration of the VCB provided consistent access to both the rostral and caudal aspects of the RMS and VCS. A trephine hole into the RMS provided poor access to the VCS, and placed the reserve crowns of the maxillary cheek teeth at risk of damage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The RMS and VCS can be best examined endoscopically using approaches with fenestration of the VCB.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable technique for sinoscopic examination of the ventral conchal (VCS) and rostral maxillary sinuses (RMS) of horses STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study ANIMALS: Cadaveric equine heads (n=40) METHODS: The VCS and RMS were examined endoscopically using: (1) rostral trephination of the RMS (rostral RMS approach); (2) caudal trephination of the RMS (caudal RMS approach); (3) conchofrontal sinus (CFS) trephination followed by RMS trephination at a site identified by endoscopic transillumination of the maxillary bone at the most rostral aspect of the caudal maxillary sinus (CMS) (light-indicated RMS approach); (4) CFS trephination with fenestration of the ventral conchal bulla (VCB; frontal VCB approach); (5) CMS trephination with VCB fenestration (caudal VCB approach); and (6) CFS and CMS trephination with VCB fenestration (combined VCB approach). RESULTS: Success in observing the rostral and caudal aspects of the VCS and RMS with each approach were: (1) rostral RMS approach (0 horses; 16 horses [40%]); (2) caudal RMS approach (0 horses; 11 horses [28%]); (3) light-indicated RMS approach (3 horses [8%]; 24 horses [60%]); (4) frontal VCB approach (24 horses [60%]; 29 horses [73%] respectively); (5) caudal VCB approach (16 horses [40%] both structures); and (6) combined VCB approach (27 horses [68%]; 35 horses [88%]). CONCLUSIONS: Trephination into the CFS coupled with fenestration of the VCB provided consistent access to both the rostral and caudal aspects of the RMS and VCS. A trephine hole into the RMS provided poor access to the VCS, and placed the reserve crowns of the maxillary cheek teeth at risk of damage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The RMS and VCS can be best examined endoscopically using approaches with fenestration of the VCB.