Apostolos Karligkiotis1,2,3, Mario Turri-Zanoni2,3, Eleonora Sica2, Carla Facco4, Stefania Freguia4, Anna Mercuri5, Andrea Pistochini2, Maurizio Bignami2,3, Paolo Castelnuovo2,3. 1. Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Surgical, Microsurgical and Medical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy. 2. Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 3. Head and Neck Surgery and Forensic Dissection Research Center (HNS & FDRC), Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 4. Division of Pathology, Department of Surgical and Morphological Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 5. Department of Neuroradiology, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, Varese, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report our experience with the endoscopic management of sinonasal schwannomas, analyzing the advantages, limitations, and outcomes of the technique. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 11 patients treated endoscopically between 2000 and 2014 at a single institution. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent an exclusive endoscopic endonasal approach, whereas, in 3 patients, an osteoplastic flap was combined because of massive or lateral frontal sinus involvement. The tumor extended into the orbit in 5 cases, and involved the skull base in 5 patients who required a concomitant endoscopic duraplasty. No evidence of disease was observed in 10 patients after a mean follow-up of 90.1 months (range, 14-189 months). One patient was alive with persistence of disease, although asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: The endoscopic endonasal approach is a valid alternative for the vast majority of sinonasal schwannomas with minimal morbidity for the patient.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report our experience with the endoscopic management of sinonasal schwannomas, analyzing the advantages, limitations, and outcomes of the technique. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 11 patients treated endoscopically between 2000 and 2014 at a single institution. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent an exclusive endoscopic endonasal approach, whereas, in 3 patients, an osteoplastic flap was combined because of massive or lateral frontal sinus involvement. The tumor extended into the orbit in 5 cases, and involved the skull base in 5 patients who required a concomitant endoscopic duraplasty. No evidence of disease was observed in 10 patients after a mean follow-up of 90.1 months (range, 14-189 months). One patient was alive with persistence of disease, although asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: The endoscopic endonasal approach is a valid alternative for the vast majority of sinonasal schwannomas with minimal morbidity for the patient.