Literature DB >> 22549820

The outside-in approach to the modified endoscopic Lothrop procedure.

David Chin1, Kornkiat Snidvongs, Larry Kalish, Raymond Sacks, Richard J Harvey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Drilling in modified endoscopic Lothrop procedure (MELP) is traditionally described as commencing from the frontal recess (FR). This is challenging when the FR is involved by tumor, inflammatory disease, or scarring. The outside-in MELP, where the limits of the sinusotomy are first defined and the FR is addressed last, is described. STUDY
DESIGN: Case-control study.
METHODS: Patients undergoing MELP, using the standard or outside-in approach, for inflammatory disease or endoscopic skull base surgery were assessed. Data were collected on demographics, disease characteristics, and FR involvement. Operative time was calculated from intraoperative video recording. Time points recorded were times to frontal sinus and recess connected for outside-in MELP and completion of Lothrop cavity for both groups. Perioperative complications (infection, skin breach or contusion, surgical emphysema, orbital bleeding, cerebrospinal fluid leak, and intracranial complications) were recorded.
RESULTS: Thirty patients (67% female) with a mean age ± standard deviation of 56.0 ± 10.8 years underwent MELP (24 outside-in, six standard). Time for Lothrop completion was shorter for outside-in MELP (30.60 ± 14.10 minutes vs. 69.66 ± 64.52 minutes, P = .002). Among outside-in MELP, mean time to frontal sinus floor discovery was 8.41 ± 6.29 minutes, to recess connected 26.50 ± 12.45 minutes, and were similar regardless of pathology. The time for Lothrop cavity completion was shorter for tumor cases (24.63 ± 6.49 minutes) than for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps (35.87 ± 20.18 minutes) and chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (34.62 ± 11.56 minutes) (P = .05). One patient had skin edema. No other complications were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: The outside-in MELP is technically feasible and safe. Its advantage is a wide approach to the frontal sinus with development of the Lothrop cavity en route resulting in short predictable operative times. Defining the limits of the dissection early provides a robust and efficient approach.
Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22549820     DOI: 10.1002/lary.23319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

Review 1.  Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  Rainer K Weber; Werner Hosemann
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-12-22

2.  Trans-Nasion-Complex Approach for Endoscopic Modified Lothrop Procedure: Conception, Anatomy, and Technique.

Authors:  Yu Zhao; Jianfeng Liu; Dazhang Yang; Jun Han; Jianhui Zhao; Yibei Wang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-04-12

Review 3.  The Draf III procedure: A review of indications and techniques.

Authors:  Michael Noller; Jakob L Fischer; David A Gudis; Charles A Riley
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-03-22

Review 4.  Outcomes After Frontal Sinus Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review.

Authors:  Adam S DeConde; Timothy L Smith
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.346

5.  The endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure: finally ready for prime time in the management of inflammatory sinus disease.

Authors:  Timothy L Smith
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.858

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.