| Literature DB >> 35220482 |
Chao He1, Hong-Tao Zhen2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Draf IIb procedure allows the widest unilateral access to the frontal sinus in a minimally invasive fashion, with efficiency and safety comparable to the Draf III. However, this technique is still associated with a high postoperative stenosis rate. The exposure of drilled bone induces osteitis predisposing to scarring and neo-osteogenesis causing ostium restenosis. We developed a novel lateral inferior pedicle flap (LIPF) to cover the exposed bone and prevent restenosis during Draf IIb. We aimed to describe our technique.Entities:
Keywords: Draf IIb; Endoscopic sinus surgery; Frontal sinus; Lateral inferior pedicle flap; Restenosis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35220482 PMCID: PMC9474523 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07302-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 0937-4477 Impact factor: 3.236
Fig. 1(A) Axial, (B) coronal and (C) sagittal paranasal sinus CT images of a patient with recurrent frontal sinus inverted papilloma who suffered by persistent headache
Fig. 2Intraoperative and postoperative endoscopic views of the LIPF technique in the left nasal cavity. (A) A vertical incision was made approximately 10 mm anterior to the axilla of the middle turbinate. (B) This incision ran around the agger nasi and across the axilla. (C) The flap was elevated towards the dorsum of the inferior turbinate. (D) The flap was unfolded to cover the exposed bone. (E) A nasopore was used to stabilize the flap. (F) A schema of the flap is shown. The blue dotted line shows the incision, and the red solid line shows the flap covering the exposed bone
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients
| Case no. | Side | Age (years) | Sex | Indication | Comorbidity | Concomitant operation | Follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L | 50 | M | IP | – | – | 100 |
| 2 | L | 40 | M | IP | – | – | 92 |
| 3 | R | 48 | M | IP | – | – | 84 |
| 4 | L | 41 | M | IP | – | – | 80 |
| 5 | L | 52 | F | IP | – | – | 75 |
| 6 | R | 56 | F | CRS | OC | – | 65 |
| 7 | R | 56 | F | Mucocele | OC | – | 65 |
| 8 | R | 83 | F | CRS | – | – | 63 |
| 9 | R | 83 | F | Mucocele | OC | – | 63 |
| 10 | L | 38 | M | CRS | – | – | 61 |
| 11 | L | 41 | M | CRS | – | – | 60 |
| 12 | R | 33 | M | Mucocele | OC | – | 60 |
| 13 | L | 32 | M | CRS | – | – | 59 |
| 14 | L | 41 | M | CRS | OC | – | 57 |
| 15 | R | 63 | F | CRS | OC | – | 56 |
| 16 | L | 19 | M | CRS | – | – | 54 |
| 17 | L | 30 | F | CRS | OC | – | 53 |
| 18 | R | 37 | M | IP | Malignancy, intracranial invasion | Craniotomy | 50 |
| 19 | L | 26 | M | Mucocele | OC | – | 45 |
| 20 | R | 48 | M | IP | – | – | 45 |
| 21 | L | 50 | M | CRS | – | – | 44 |
| 22 | L | 46 | M | CRS | – | – | 44 |
| 23 | L | 26 | M | CRS | OC | – | 44 |
| 24 | R | 47 | F | CRS | – | – | 43 |
| 25 | L | 70 | F | Mucocele | OC | – | 41 |
| 26 | L | 61 | F | CRS | – | – | 40 |
| 27 | R | 54 | F | CRS | – | – | 40 |
| 28 | L | 51 | F | CRS | – | – | 39 |
| 29 | L | 54 | M | CRS | – | – | 39 |
| 30 | L | 50 | M | Mucocele | – | – | 37 |
| 31 | L | 61 | M | CRS | OC | – | 33 |
| 32 | R | 55 | F | CRS | – | – | 32 |
| 33 | L | 78 | M | IP | – | – | 30 |
| 34 | L | 44 | F | CRS | – | – | 29 |
| 35 | R | 30 | F | Mucocele | OC | – | 29 |
| 36 | R | 55 | M | CRS | – | – | 27 |
| 37 | R | 55 | F | IP | – | – | 27 |
| 38 | L | 29 | F | CRS | AFR | – | 24 |
| 39 | R | 46 | M | CRS | – | – | 24 |
| 40 | R | 31 | M | CRS | – | – | 23 |
| 41 | R | 31 | M | CRS | OC | – | 23 |
| 42 | L | 37 | M | CRS | – | – | 22 |
| 43 | L | 47 | F | Mucocele | AFR | – | 22 |
| 44 | L | 66 | F | CRS | – | – | 19 |
| 45 | R | 19 | M | CRS | AFR, OC | Trephine | 15 |
| 46 | R | 72 | F | CRS | OC | – | 14 |
| 47 | R | 49 | M | CRS | – | – | 13 |
| 48 | L | 65 | M | CRS | – | – | 12 |
| 49 | R | 49 | M | CRS | – | – | 12 |
CRS chronic rhinosinusitis, IP inverted papilloma, OC orbit complication, AFR allergic fungal rhinosinusitis
Fig. 3(A) Endoscopic views, (B) Axial, (C) coronal and (D) sagittal CT images showing the neo-ostium at 12 months after surgery
VAS and Lund-Kennedy scores of patients with recalcitrant CRS
| Baseline | 3 months | 1 year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VAS score | |||
| Nasal obstruction | 1 (0, 2) | 1 (0, 3) | 1 (0, 2) |
| Rhinorrhea | 1 (0, 3) | 1 (0, 3) | 1 (0, 3) |
| Facial pain | 5 (4, 7) | 2 (1, 3)* | 2 (1, 3)* |
| Loss of smell | 2 (1, 4) | 2 (1, 3) | 2 (1, 3) |
| Total symptom | 11 (6, 16) | 9 (4, 11)* | 9 (4, 11)* |
| Overall burden | 2 (0, 3) | 2 (1, 2) | 2 (1, 3) |
| Total endoscopic score | 4 (3, 5) | 2 (2, 4)* | 2 (1, 3)*,# |
*Compared with the score of baseline, P < 0.05
#Compared with the score of 3 months, P < 0.05