| Literature DB >> 28516976 |
Abstract
The management of stenoses of the major salivary glands had undergone a significant change during the last 15-20 years. Accurate diagnosis forms the basis of adapted minimal invasive therapy. Conventional sialography and MR-sialography are useful examination tools, and ultrasound seems to be a first-line investigational tool if salivary duct stenosis is suspected as cause of gland obstruction. Sialendoscopy is the best choice to establish final diagnosis and characterise the stenosis in order to plan accurate treatment. In all major salivary glands, inflammatory stenosis can be distinguished from fibrotic stenosis. In the parotid duct system, an additional stenosis associated with various abnormalities of the duct system has been reported. Conservative therapy is not sufficient in the majority of cases. The development of a minimally invasive treatment regime, in which sialendoscopy plays a major role, has made the preservation of the gland and its function possible in over 90% of cases. Ductal incision procedures are the most important measure in submandibular duct stenoses, but sialendoscopy becomes more important in the more centrally located stenoses. Sialendoscopic controlled opening and dilation is the dominating method in parotid duct stenoses. In 10-15% of cases, success can be achieved after a combined treatment regime had been applied. This review article aims to give an overview on the epidemiology, diagnostics and current state of the art of the treatment of salivary duct stenoses. © Copyright by Società Italiana di Otorinolaringologia e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale, Rome, Italy.Entities:
Keywords: Gland preservation; Minimal invasive; Salivary duct stenosis; Sialendoscopy; Treatment
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28516976 PMCID: PMC5463521 DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-1603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital ISSN: 0392-100X Impact factor: 2.124
Results in the literature after minimally invasive, sialographic-controlled treatment of salivary duct stenoses.
| Author (year) | Glands | SMG | PG | Partial | Complete | Improve of | Recurrent or | Preservation of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buckenham et al. (1992) | 1 | n.n. | 1 | ----- | 100 | n.n. | n.n. | n.n. |
| Roberts et al. (1995) | 3 | ----- | 3 | ----- | 100 | 100 | 33.3 | n.n. |
| Brown et al. (1997) | 30 | 6 | 24 | ----- | Total 86.7 | Total 77 | Total 30 | Total 93.3 |
| Waldmann et al. (1998) | 1 | ----- | 1 | ----- | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Drage et al. (2002) | 36 | 14 | 82 | 96 | 52 | n.n. | ||
| Brown et al. (2006) | 125 | 9.6 | 71.5 | n.n. | n.n. | n.n. | ||
| Salerno et al. (2007) | 9 | 2 | 7 | Total 55.5 | Total 33.3 | Total 77.8 | Total 22.2 | n.n. |
Legend: SMG: submandibular gland, PG: parotid gland
Fig. 1.Treatment algorithm for stenoses in Wharton's duct system (from Koch et al., 2009 , mod.).
Results in the literature after treatment of salivary duct stenoses with a minimally invasive, sialendoscopy-dominated therapy regime.
| Author (year) | Glands | SMG | PG | Success of | Improve of | Persistent | Preservation of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nahlieli et al. (2001) | 25 | 11 | 14 | Total 80 | Total 96 | Total 20 | Total 96 |
| Koch et al. (2008) | 45 | ----- | 45 | 91.1 | 92.3 | 7.7 | 93.7 |
| Papadaki et al. (2008) | 18 | n.n. | n.n. | 100 | n.n. | n.n. | 100 |
| Ardekian et al. (2008) | 87 | ----- | 87 | 81.7 | n.n. | n.n. | n.n. |
| Maresh et al. (2011) | 8 | 4 | 4 | Total 90 | Total 75 | Total 25 | Total 100 |
| Koch et al. (2011) | 153 | 153 | ----- | 94.8 | 94.8 | 5.2 | 97.8 |
| Koch et al. (2012) | 99 | ----- | 99 | 89.9 | 96.8 | 10.7 | 96.8 |
| Kopec et al. (2012) | 59 | 24 | 35 | Total 92 | Total 92 (signifikant 78) | n.n. | Total 98.3 |
| Vashishta et al. (2013) | 47 | n.n. | n.n. | n.n. | Total 88 | Total 39 | Total 95.8 |
| Ryan et al. (2014) | 1 | ----- | 1 | 100 | 100 | ----- | 100 |
Legend: SMG: submandibular gland, PG: parotid gland
Fig. 2.Treatment algorithm for stenoses of Stensen's duct system (from Koch et al., 2009 , mod.).