OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To report our experience with management of giant salivary stones via a combined approach technique using salivary endoscopy (CA) and results of a review of current literature related to giant salivary stones. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved chart review was performed on patients managed with a CA to treat giant salivary stones (≥15 mm). In addition, we reviewed the English literature from 1942 to 2009. RESULTS: Table 1 consists of 54 stones; 47 of which were identified during the review of literature and 7 from our case series. Of those 47 stones, 23 were hilar in location, 23 were glandular in location, and 1 stone was missing data. The gland preservation rate in the 47 reported stones was 57% (17/30). Among patients where gland resection was reported, the majority of the patients (12/13) had hilar glandular stones. Only one patient with a ductal stone had a gland resection. In our series, CA enabled a gland preservation rate of 86% (6/7). Among these patients, stone location was hilar glandular in six (86%) and ductal in one (14%). The mean size of stones from the literature review was 35 mm and from our series was 19 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reflects current treatment recommendations for giant stones, i.e., transoral sialolithotomy for ductal stones and gland resection for hilar glandular stones. Our preliminary experience with CA for giant stones suggests improved gland preservation rates (86% vs. 57%) independent of stone location and with preservation of salivary function.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To report our experience with management of giant salivary stones via a combined approach technique using salivary endoscopy (CA) and results of a review of current literature related to giant salivary stones. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved chart review was performed on patients managed with a CA to treat giant salivary stones (≥15 mm). In addition, we reviewed the English literature from 1942 to 2009. RESULTS: Table 1 consists of 54 stones; 47 of which were identified during the review of literature and 7 from our case series. Of those 47 stones, 23 were hilar in location, 23 were glandular in location, and 1 stone was missing data. The gland preservation rate in the 47 reported stones was 57% (17/30). Among patients where gland resection was reported, the majority of the patients (12/13) had hilar glandular stones. Only one patient with a ductal stone had a gland resection. In our series, CA enabled a gland preservation rate of 86% (6/7). Among these patients, stone location was hilar glandular in six (86%) and ductal in one (14%). The mean size of stones from the literature review was 35 mm and from our series was 19 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reflects current treatment recommendations for giant stones, i.e., transoral sialolithotomy for ductal stones and gland resection for hilar glandular stones. Our preliminary experience with CA for giant stones suggests improved gland preservation rates (86% vs. 57%) independent of stone location and with preservation of salivary function.
Authors: A Gallo; M Benazzo; P Capaccio; L De Campora; M De Vincentiis; M Fusconi; S Martellucci; G Paludetti; E Pasquini; R Puxeddu; R Speciale Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.124