Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:28:38.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Posterior translacrimal approach to the maxillary sinus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

D Dönmez ,
E Giotakis ,
W G Hosemann ,
T S Kühnel ,
B Hirt  and
R K Weber
D Dönmez*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe, Germany
E Giotakis
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe, Germany
W G Hosemann
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Greifswald, Germany
T S Kühnel
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Regensburg, Germany
B Hirt
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Anatomy and Cell Analysis, University of Tübingen, Germany
R K Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe, Germany i-SINUS International Sinus Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: Dr D Dönmez, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe, Moltkestraße 90 D- 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax: +49 721 974 2509 E-mail: duygu.doenmez@klinikum-karlsruhe.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

This study aimed to compare the view into the maxillary sinus using the posterior translacrimal approach compared with grade 3 antrostomy.

Methods:

Grade 3 antrostomy followed by a posterior translacrimal approach was performed on four cadavers. The maximum intramaxillary view was documented endoscopically guided by electromagnetic navigation. Representative screenshots were evaluated in a blinded manner by three independent sinus surgeons. In addition, a prospective investigation of specific complications in the post-operative course of consecutive patients was performed.

Results:

In the cadaver study, the posterior translacrimal approach provided a significantly better view into the maxillary sinus compared with grade 3 antrostomy. In the clinical study, only 1 out of 20 patients reported on a minor problem with lacrimal drainage at 6 months.

Conclusion:

The posterior translacrimal approach to visualising the maxillary sinus should be considered a strong alternative to more radical techniques.

Keywords

Surgical EndoscopyParanasal Sinus DiseasesMaxillary SinusNasolacrimal Duct
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 871 - 879
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kennedy, DW, Adappa, ND. Endoscopic maxillary antrostomy: not just a simple procedure. Laryngoscope 2011;121:2142–5Google Scholar
2 Weber, RK, Hosemann, W. Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;14:1–108 Google Scholar
3 Stammberger, H. Comments on the contribution by U. Goede. Maxillary sinus fenestration via the middle vs. lower nasal passage [in German]. HNO 1998;46:95–101 Google Scholar
4 Konstantinidis, I, Constantinidis, J. Medial maxillectomy in recalcitrant sinusitis: when, why and how? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;22:68–74 Google Scholar
5 Simmen, D, Jones, NS. Manual of endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery, 2nd edn. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme, 2013;8:91–106 Google Scholar
6 Wormald, PJ. Endoscopic sinus surgery, 3rd edn. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme, 2013;5:28–44 Google Scholar
7 Albu, S, Tomescu, E. Small and large middle meatus antrostomies in the treatment of chronic maxillary sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:542–7Google Scholar
8 Ngoc Ha, T, Valentine, R, Moratti, S, Robinson, S, Hanton, L, Wormald, PJ. A blinded randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of chitosan gel on ostial stenosis following endoscopic sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013;3:573–80Google Scholar
9 Hosemann, W, Scotti, O, Bentzien, S. Evaluation of telescopes and forceps for endoscopic transnasal surgery on the maxillary sinus. Am J Rhinol 2003;17:311–16Google Scholar
10 Robey, A, O'Brien, EK, Leopold, DA. Assessing current technical limitations in the small-hole endoscopic approach to the maxillary sinus. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:396–401 Google Scholar
11 Albu, S, Gocea, A, Necula, S. Simultaneous inferior and middle meatus antrostomies in the treatment of the severely diseased maxillary sinus. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011;25:e80–e85 Google Scholar
12 Zhou, B, Han, DM, Cui, SJ, Huang, Q, Wei, YX, Liu, HC et al. Endoscopic nasal lateral wall dissection approach to maxillary sinus [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2007;42:743–8Google Scholar
13 Sathananthar, S, Nagaonkar, S, Paleri, V, Le, T, Robinson, S, Wormald, PJ. Canine fossa puncture and clearance of the maxillary sinus for the severely diseased maxillary sinus. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1026–9Google Scholar
14 Giotakis, EI, Weber, RK. Cysts of the maxillary sinus: a literature review. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013;3:766–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed