Outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jiang, Sijie; Fan, Ruohao; Zhang, Hua; Jiang, Weihong; Xie, Zhihai

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.06.004

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous studies have shown comparable outcomes between EEA and open approaches when adjusting for tumor type, stage, margins, and other prognostic factors 14,182,264,265,280–299 . Husain et al.…”

Section: Surgical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors

Kuan

Wang

Adappa

et al. 2024

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represents a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field.MethodsIn accordance with prior ICAR documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication.ResultsThe ICNST document consists of 4 major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention.ConclusionAs an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Section: Surgical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jiang et al. performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of 23 studies comparing EEA ( n = 653) versus open approaches ( n = 720) 298 . The authors performed a pooled analysis that included 130 EEA and 118 open approach patients.…”

Section: Surgical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors

Kuan

Wang

Adappa

et al. 2024

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They included 900 patients in total where endoscopic and open resections were utilized in 399 (44%) and 501 (56%) cases, respectively. In another systematic review and meta-analysis, Jiang et al [ 23 ] found that out of a sample of 1373 patients, 47.6% were operated on endoscopically (mainly early-stage tumours) and 52.4% by an open approach (mainly advanced-stage tumours). These data seem to confirm the trend towards a more frequent use of endoscopic surgery mostly in early-stage tumours.…”

Section: Surgical Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Selective Role of Open and Endoscopic Approaches for Sinonasal Malignant Tumours

López

Shah

Beitler³

et al. 2022

Adv Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic endonasal surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of selected cases of sinonasal cancers. However, in cases of locally advanced neoplasms, as well as recurrences, the most appropriate approach is still debated. The present review aims to summarize the current state of knowledge on the utility of open approaches to resect sinonasal malignant tumours. Published comparative studies and meta-analyses suggest comparable oncological results with lower morbidity for the endoscopic approaches, but selection biases cannot be excluded. After a critical analysis of the available literature, it can be concluded that endoscopic surgery for selected lesions allows for oncologically safe resections with decreased morbidity. However, when endoscopic endonasal surgery is contraindicated and definitive chemoradiotherapy is not appropriate, craniofacial and transfacial approaches remain the best therapeutic option.

show abstract

“…Additionally, even with advanced angled instrumentation, access to the ventrolateral reaches of the frontal sinus and posterior table remain challenging endoscopically. A major postoperative complaint of patients undergoing a transplanum transcribriform surgery is postoperative anosmia because of destruction of the olfactory mucosa [5,13,14]. For patients with larger tumors extending beyond the ethmoid and those with desire to preserve olfaction, one may consider the open transbasal approach to be more suitable.…”

Section: Anterior Fossamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An emphasis on minimizing external incisions, organ preservation, and decreased neurovascular retraction has had profoundly positive implications towards patient functional outcomes [1 && ]. In pituitary surgery, the introduction of the endoscope has led to increased rates of gross tumor resection, shorter hospital stays, and decreased rates of meningitis [2][3][4][5]. Nevertheless, clinical circumstances persist that require more traditional open procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical considerations for open versus endoscopic approaches in skull base surgery

Jawad

VanKoevering

Carrau

et al. 2022

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology &Amp; Head &Amp; Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review We aim to distill the current body of evidence to consider when selecting an endoscopic versus open approach to address cranial base disease. We evaluate the evolution of modern surgical techniques and their respective limitations. Recent findings Greater understanding of the role of tumor biology in relation to patient outcomes has led to increasingly sophisticated treatment algorithms. This combined with further development of advanced instrumentation and technique has led to the adoption of new surgical corridors previously unapproachable via traditional surgery. Summary Endoscopic and open craniofacial approaches both remain important surgical techniques in the management of cranial base tumors. The modern skull base surgeon may employ a combination of approaches to optimize tumor extirpation while preserving functional outcomes. Patient history, anatomic tumor extent, histology, and functional goals should be considered thoroughly when planning any surgical intervention.

show abstract

Outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 43 publications

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors

The Selective Role of Open and Endoscopic Approaches for Sinonasal Malignant Tumours

Clinical considerations for open versus endoscopic approaches in skull base surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About