Literature DB >> 30549387

Gland-preserving surgery for salivary stones and the utility of sialendoscopes.

Joshua E Fabie1, Anvesh R Kompelli1, Tate M Naylor2, Shaun A Nguyen1, Eric J Lentsch1, M Boyd Gillespie2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sialoendoscopy is the standard treatment for sialolithiasis; however, some patients may be unlikely to benefit from an endoscopic approach. This study assesses predictors of failure in the endoscopic management of sialoliths.
METHODS: Patients treated for sialolithiasis from 2012 to 2017 at two centers were stratified into 3 groups: successful interventional sialendoscopy, incisional sialolithotomy, and gland excision. Patient, disease, and surgical factors were compared.
RESULTS: Interventional sialendoscopy was attempted in 156 of 206 cases and successful for 42 (27%). Endoscopically retrieved calculi were smaller (4.96 mm) compared to incisional sialolithotomy (7.90 mm). Nonendoscopic approaches were required more often in submandibular cases 87% (P ≤ .005). Palpable stones were present in 74% of incisional sialolithotomies (P < .001). Submandibular location (OR 3.50, 1.53-7.98), palpability (OR 2.74, 1.21-6.18), CT localization (OR 3.05, 1.32-7.10, P = .010), and increased diameter (OR 1.25, 1.09-1.44) were predictive of incisional management.
CONCLUSION: Stone size/location, CT-localization, and palpability were predictive of calculi that require an incisional approach. If these factors are recognized, the surgeon can consider proceeding directly to incisional sialolithotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  salivary surgery; sialadenectomy; sialendoscopy; sialolithiasis; sialolithotomy

Year:  2018        PMID: 30549387     DOI: 10.1002/hed.25560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Head Neck        ISSN: 1043-3074            Impact factor:   3.147


  5 in total

1.  Feasibility of 3D printed salivary duct models for sialendoscopic skills training: preliminary report.

Authors:  Pietro Canzi; Pasquale Capaccio; Stefania Marconi; Giorgio Conte; Lorenzo Preda; Irene Avato; Federico Aprile; Michele Gaffuri; Antonio Occhini; Lorenzo Pignataro; Ferdinando Auricchio; Marco Benazzo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  A gland-sparing, intraoral sialolithotomy approach for hilar and intraparenchymal multiple stones in the submandibular gland.

Authors:  Huan Shi; Jun Zhao; Eugene Poh Hze-Khoong; Shixin Liu; Xuelai Yin; Yongjie Hu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Nomogram to predict the risk of endoscopic removal failure with forceps/baskets for treating submandibular stones.

Authors:  Yun Huang; Pei-Sheng Liang; Yao-Cheng Yang; Wei-Xin Cai; Qian Tao
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 1.337

4.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance sialography in the evaluation of salivary sialolithiasis: radiologic-endoscopic correlation.

Authors:  Omneya Gamaleldin; Emad A Magdy; Hesham Zoheir; Gihan Mohamed Shehata; Nermeen Elsebaie
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2022-08-05

5.  [Prognostic factors for successful outcome in sialendoscopy for sialolithiasis].

Authors:  Aris I Giotakis; Rene Fischlechner; Daniel Dejaco; Timo Gottfried; Herbert Riechelmann
Journal:  Laryngorhinootologie       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 1.057

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.