| Literature DB >> 31905760 |
Veronica Trombitaș1, Adriana Zolog2, Mioriţa Toader3, Silviu Albu1.
Abstract
Objectives/Hypothesis: Stenosis of the middle meatus antrostomy (MMA) represents a major cause of recurrent disease following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Various strategies have been developed to prevent the occurrence of MMA stenosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of spray cryotherapy (SC) on nasal wound healing following ESS.Entities:
Keywords: endoscopic sinus surgery; histology; middle meatus antrostomy; nasal mucosa; spray cryotherapy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31905760 PMCID: PMC7019262 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9010088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1(A) Device of spray cryotherapy. (B,C) Spray cryotherapy application.
Inflammatory parameters used in the histological assessment [26].
| Parameter | Grade | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | Normal aspect: 0–10 cells/HPF |
| 1 | Discrete inflammation: 11–30 cells/HPF | |
| 2 | Moderate inflammation: 31–50 cells/HPF | |
| 3 | Severe inflammation: >50 cells/ HPF | |
|
| 0 | No edema |
| 1 | Focal sub-epithelial edema | |
| 2 | Diffuse sub-epithelial edema | |
| 3 | Diffuse sub-epithelial and intraglandular edema | |
|
| 0 | Normal aspect |
| 1 | Shortened cilia | |
| 2 | Dotted cilia disappearance | |
| 3 | Lack of cilia | |
|
| 0 | Normal aspect: 0 cells/HPF |
| 1 | Discrete inflammation: 0–30 cells/HPF | |
| 2 | Moderate inflammation: 31–50 cells/HPF | |
| 3 | Severe inflammation: >50 cells/HPF | |
|
| 0 | No fibrosis |
| 1 | Sub-epithelial fibrosis | |
| 2 | Sub-epithelial and interglandular fibrosis | |
| 3 | Diffuse fibrosis (sub-epithelial and interglandular) with compression atrophy of glands and capillaries | |
|
| 0 | No epithelial hyperplasia |
| 1 | Dotted hyperplasia | |
| 2 | Diffuse hyperplasia | |
|
| 0 | No squamous metaplasia |
| 1 | Immature squamous metaplasia/dotted | |
| 2 | Mature squamous metaplasia/diffuse |
HPF = high-pass filter, 40×.
Figure 2AutoCAD evaluation of maxillary antrostomy.
Figure 3Middle meatus antrostomy area—comparison between the two groups.
Figure 4Middle meatus antrostomy diameter—comparison between the two groups.
Area and diameter assessment in cryotherapy and control groups.
| Cryotherapy Side | Control Side | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Area (cm2) | 0.658 ± 0.0998 | 0.638 ± 0.0872 | 0.456 | |
| Diameter (cm) | 0.755 ± 0.1393 | 0.707 ± 0.1291 | 0.173 | |
| Area—1st follow-up visit (cm2) | 0.578 ± 0.1025 | 0.401 ± 0.0804 | 0.000 | |
| Diameter—1st follow-up visit (cm) | 0.645 ± 0.1024 | 0.426 ± 0.0828 | 0.000 | |
| Area—2nd follow-up visit (cm2) | 0.605 ± 0.1891 | 0.399 ± 0.0976 | 0.000 | |
| Diameter—2nd follow-up visit (cm) | 0.624 ± 0.0961 | 0.415 ± 0.0935 | 0.000 |
1st follow-up visit—3 months following surgery; 2nd follow-up visit—12 months following surgery.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for area and diameter.
| Test Result Variable(s) | AUC ( |
|---|---|
| Initial Area (cm2) | 0.581 (0.319) |
| Initial Diameter (cm) | 0.602 (0.207) |
| Area—1st follow-up visit (cm2) | 0.908 (0.000) |
| Diameter—1st follow-up visit (cm) | 0.967 (0.000) |
| Area—2nd follow-up visit (cm2) | 0.896 (0.000) |
| Diameter—2nd follow-up visit (cm) | 0.938 (0.000) |
AUC—Area Under the Curve.
Figure 5ROC curve.
Figure 6The evolution of the middle meatus antrostomy. (A) Intraoperative endoscopic aspect. (B) Spray cryotherapy—second follow-up endoscopic aspect. (C) Control—second follow-up endoscopic aspect.
Histological scores in the two treatment groups.
| Variable | Cryotherapy | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fibrosis—intraoperative | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0.975 |
| Fibrosis—1st follow-up visit | 2 (1) | 2 (0) | 0.541 |
| Fibrosis—2nd follow-up visit | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.092 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—intraoperative | 3 (1) | 3 (1) | 0.838 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—1st follow-up visit | 1(1) | 1.5 (1) | 0.003 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—2nd follow-up visit | 0 (1) | 1 (0) | 0.000 |
| Edema—intraoperative | 2 (0) | 2 (1) | 0.446 |
| Edema—1st follow-up visit | 0.5 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.000 |
| Edema—2nd follow-up visit | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.040 |
| Ciliated cells—intraoperative | 1 (0) | 1 (1) | 0.091 |
| Ciliated cells—1st follow-up visit | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.007 |
| Ciliated cells—2nd follow-up visit | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.000 |
| Goblet cells—intraoperative | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.055 |
| Goblet cells—1st follow-up visit | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.001 |
| Goblet cells—2nd follow-up visit | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 0.000 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—intraoperative | 2 (1) | 2 (1) | 0.273 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—1st follow-up visit | 1 (2) | 2 (1) | 0.030 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—2nd follow-up visit | 0 (1) | 1 (0) | 0.001 |
| Squamous metaplasia—intraoperative | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.937 |
| Squamous metaplasia—1st follow-up visit | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.082 |
| Squamous metaplasia—2nd follow-up visit | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.069 |
1st follow-up visit—3 months following surgery; 2nd follow-up visit—12 months following surgery.
The inflammatory parameter evolution in the SC group: Kendall’s correlation coefficient.
| Histologic Parameter vs. Treatment Group | Kendall’s Tau-b | |
|---|---|---|
| Fibrosis—intraoperative | −0.004 | 0.975 |
| Fibrosis—1st follow-up visit | −0.081 | 0.535 |
| Fibrosis—2nd follow-up visit | 0.221 | 0.072 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—intraoperative | 0.027 | 0.837 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—1st follow-up visit | −0.391 | 0.000 |
| Mononuclear (inflammatory) cell infiltrate—2nd follow-up visit | −0.510 | 0.000 |
| Edema—intraoperative | 0.102 | 0.438 |
| Edema—1stfollow-up visit | −0.543 | 0.000 |
| Edema—2nd follow-up visit | −0.279 | 0.033 |
| Ciliated cells—intraoperative | −0.228 | 0.075 |
| Ciliated cells—1st follow-up visit | 0.358 | 0.002 |
| Ciliated cells—2nd follow-up visit | 0.488 | 0.000 |
| Goblet cells—intraoperative | −0.262 | 0.030 |
| Goblet cells—1st follow-up visit | −0.422 | 0.000 |
| Goblet cells—2nd follow-up visit | −0.508 | 0.000 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—intraoperative | −0.144 | 0.260 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—1st follow-up visit | −0.284 | 0.019 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia—2nd follow-up visit | −0.454 | 0.000 |
| Squamous metaplasia—intraoperative | −0.011 | 0.937 |
| Squamous metaplasia—1st follow-up visit | −0.232 | 0.065 |
| Squamous metaplasia—2nd follow-up visit | −0.250 | 0.055 |
1st follow-up visit—3 months following surgery; 2nd follow-up visit—12 months following surgery.
Figure 7The histological examination of mucosa from the margins of the maxillary antrostomy. Spray cryotherapy (SC) group: (A) Three months following cryotherapy: Edematous stroma, minimal inflammatory infiltrate, epithelial hyperplasia (Hematoxylin and Eosin stain, 10×). (B) Histological aspect at 12 months after SC: Collagen fibers in the corium, sero glandular mucous acini, and excretory ducts (Hematoxylin and Eosin stain, 10×). (C) Minimal fibrosis in the corium at 12 months after SC (Masson Thrichrome stain, 10×). Control group: (A1) Three months following surgery: mucosa with reactive alterations, edema, important inflammatory infiltrate (Hematoxylin and Eosin stain, 10×). (B1) Twelve months following surgery: Mucosa with moderate edema, fibrosis, and inflammatory infiltrate (Hematoxylin and Eosin stain, 10×). (C1) Twelve months following surgery: Fibrosis and important epithelial hyperplasia (Masson Thrichrome stain, 10×).
Correlation between inflammatory histological parameters and size of the middle meatal antrostomy (Spearman correlation test).
| Area | Diameter | |
|---|---|---|
| Inflammatory cell infiltrate | r = −0.402 | r = −0.428 |
| Edema | r = −0.457 | r = −0.477 |
| Goblet cells | r = −0.437 | r = −0.469 |
| Epithelial hyperplasia | r = −0.475 | r = −0.452 |
r—correlation coefficient.
Correlation between inflammatory histological parameters (Spearman correlation test).
| Edema | Epithelial Hyperplasia | |
|---|---|---|
| Inflammatory cell infiltrate | r = 0.410 | r = 0.425 |
| Goblet cells | r = 0.440 | r = 0.450 |
r—correlation coefficient.
Subjective outcomes in cryotherapy and control groups.
| Control Side | Cryotherapy Side | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Obstruction | 7.53 ± 1.63 | 7.37 ± 1.72 | 0.36 |
| Obstruction—2nd follow-up visit | 3.18 ± 0.89 | 1.78 ± 0.72 | 0.000 |
| Discharge | 7.23 ± 1.65 | 7.10 ± 1.84 | 0.44 |
| Discharge—2nd follow-up visit | 3.43 ± 0.59 | 1.76 ± 0.73 | 0.000 |
| Facial pressure | 6.48 ± 1.72 | 6.51 ± 1.68 | 0.52 |
| Facial pressure—2nd follow-up visit | 2.1 ± 0.84 | 2.0 ± 0.75 | 0.38 |
2nd follow-up visit—12 months following surgery.
Visual assessments in the preoperative and postoperative period.
| Preoperative | Postoperative Control | Postoperative Cryotherapy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Periorbital pain | No | No | No |
| Periorbital swelling | No | No | No |
| Proptosis | No | No | No |
| Globe displacement | No | No | No |
| Decreased ocular motility | No | No | No |
| Diplopia | No | No | No |
| Decreased color perception | No | No | No |
| Decreased visual acuity | No | No | No |
| Visual field loss | No | No | No |