Comparison of endoscopic and external resections for sinonasal instestinal-type adenocarcinoma

Abstract

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is considered as a valid option in the management of nasal adenocarcinoma (ADC). Comparative studies with open approaches are still required. A monocentric retrospective study was carried out from May 2002 to December 2013, including 43 patients with intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the ethmoid sinus. Non-resectable tumours or recurrences were excluded. Before 2008, open approach with lateral rhinotomy (LR) was performed as the gold standard of treatment. From 2008, ESS was systematically used as a first-line option as long as a complete resection was achievable. Adjuvant radiation therapy was delivered (RT) for all the patients. LR and ESS were performed in, respectively, 23 and 20 patients. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, occupational dust exposure, histopathological subtypes, and T stage based on the pathological assessment of the specimen (10 pT2, 26 pT3, 2 pT4a, and 5 pT4b). The tumour origin was mainly located in the olfactory cleft with the involvement of the cribriform plate in 60 % of patients. No major complication was observed in ESS group with a reduced hospital stay (5.6 vs 7.6 days). The disease-free survival was not different between LR and ESS groups over a mean follow-up period of 6.6 years. Even for local advanced stages with skull base involvement, we confirm the reliability and the advantages of ESS in terms of oncological outcomes and morbidity. We advocate complete excision of the olfactory cleft to ensure an appropriate control of the tumoral origin.

Surgical outcomes of endoscopic versus open resection for the management of sinonasal malignancies

“…Farquhar et al 15 and Fu et al 18 observed a shorter hospital stay with endoscopic surgery. The results of the above study agree with the current paper, as well as with Naunheim et al 12 , Mortuaire et al 17 , and Hagemann et al 16 . The average length of hospital stay ranges from 3.0 to 4.7 days for endoscopic resection and 5.7 to 11.5 days for open resection.…”

“…Here, the authors reported that the outcomes for the endoscopic approach were similar to or greater than those for the open resection approach. Arnold et al 14 reported that the complication rates were significantly lower in the endoscopic approach (60%) than in the open resection approach (78%), which agreed with Mortuaire et al 17 . As found in the English literature 18 , the overall complication rates between the endoscopic and open approaches range from 3% to 26% and 15% to 53%, respectively.…”

“…Hagemann et al 16 identified 6 days of hospital stay with endoscopic resection and 9 days with open resection (P=0.001). Mortuaire et al 17 observed 5 days of hospital stay with the endoscopic approach and 8 days with the open resection approach (P=0.001). Similarly, Fu et al 18 also identified a shorter length of hospital stay for endoscopic resection than for open surgical resection of 6 days and 12 days (P=0.01), respectively.…”

Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017

“…Of the 97 biomedical articles with empirical data, there were two articles that had at least some portion of their findings replicated. One of the replicating articles used an “almost comparable study design but over a longer period” and included some patients with different characteristics (Index article: 24415438, replication: 27363404) [ 17 ]. The second was a partial replication effort with a longer follow-up (Index article: 27067885, replication: 27241577).…”

Surgical Management Patterns of Sinonasal Malignancy: A Population-Based Study

“…5 In contrast, a retrospective analysis by Mortuaire et al compared an evenly distributed, matched group of patients undergoing either open or endoscopic surgery for the treatment of nasal adenocarcinoma; the endoscopic group experienced similar DFS as the open group. 6 Devaiah and Andreoli performed a meta-analysis for outcomes associated with ENB and showed that both open and endoscopic survival measures were comparable, although larger tumors were more often treated with an open approach. 7 A large single-institution study by Hanna et al retrospectively reviewed oncologic outcomes of 120 patients undergoing an exclusive endoscopic approach compared with a combined endoscopic and open approach.…”