Giuseppe Meccariello1, Alberto Deganello1, Olivier Choussy2, Oreste Gallo1, Daniele Vitali1, Dominique De Raucourt3, Christos Georgalas4. 1. Academic Clinic of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck surgery, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 2. ENT Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 3. ENT Department, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Caen, France. 4. Endoscopic Skull Base Center, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection represents the gold standard for the treatment of sinonasal malignancies. This study reviewed the published outcomes on endoscopic surgery or endoscopic-assisted surgery versus open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL electronic databases were searched for English language articles on endoscopic surgery, endoscopic-assisted surgery, and open approach for sinonasal adenocarcinomas. Each article was examined for patient data and outcomes for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles including 1826 patients were used for the analysis. The endoscopic surgery and endoscopic-assisted surgery showed low rates of major complications (6.6% and 25.9%, respectively) compared to open approaches (36.4%; p < .01). The incidence of local failure was lower in the endoscopic surgery group as compared with open approach patients (17.8% vs 38.5%; p < .01, respectively). The multivariate Cox regression model showed a worst overall survival related to advanced T classification and open approach. CONCLUSION: From the existing body of data, there is growing evidence that endoscopic nasal resection is a safe surgical option in the management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas.
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection represents the gold standard for the treatment of sinonasal malignancies. This study reviewed the published outcomes on endoscopic surgery or endoscopic-assisted surgery versus open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL electronic databases were searched for English language articles on endoscopic surgery, endoscopic-assisted surgery, and open approach for sinonasal adenocarcinomas. Each article was examined for patient data and outcomes for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles including 1826 patients were used for the analysis. The endoscopic surgery and endoscopic-assisted surgery showed low rates of major complications (6.6% and 25.9%, respectively) compared to open approaches (36.4%; p < .01). The incidence of local failure was lower in the endoscopic surgery group as compared with open approach patients (17.8% vs 38.5%; p < .01, respectively). The multivariate Cox regression model showed a worst overall survival related to advanced T classification and open approach. CONCLUSION: From the existing body of data, there is growing evidence that endoscopic nasal resection is a safe surgical option in the management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas.
Authors: Terence S Fu; Eric Monteiro; Ian Witterick; Allan Vescan; Gelareh Zadeh; Fred Gentili; John R de Almeida Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2017-06-30
Authors: Alexander Maurer; Christian M Meerwein; Michael B Soyka; Hannes Grünig; Stephan Skawran; Urs J Mühlematter; Michael Messerli; Cäcilia E Mader; Lars Husmann; Niels J Rupp; David Holzmann; Martin W Huellner Journal: Head Neck Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.821
Authors: Christian M Meerwein; Thomas M Stadler; Panagiotis Balermpas; Michael B Soyka; David Holzmann Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2021-09-04
Authors: Alperen Vural; Andrea Luigi Camillo Carobbio; Marco Ferrari; Vittorio Rampinelli; Alberto Schreiber; Davide Mattavelli; Francesco Doglietto; Barbara Buffoli; Luigi Fabrizio Rodella; Stefano Taboni; Michele Tomasoni; Tommaso Gualtieri; Alberto Deganello; Lena Hirtler; Piero Nicolai Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.042