The role of endoscopic surgery in the treatment of nasal inverted papilloma

Constantino, Guilherme de Toledo Leme; Abdo, Tatiana T.; Romano, Fabrizio Ricci; Voegels, Richard Louis; Butugan, Ossamu

doi:10.1016/s1808-8694(15)31124-1

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the Krouse staging, patients with T1 and T2-stage tumors generally can undergo an endoscopic approach, while T3 and T4 stages require multiple transnasal approaches and/or open surgery. 11,18 To achieve complete resection, including its attachment site, transnasal endoscopy can be combined with a Caldwell-Luc approach or other open approach. 14,19 Various endoscopic techniques for SNIP include endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), endoscopic medial maxillectomy (EMM), endoscopic modified medial maxillectomy (EMMM), endoscopic modified Denker's procedure, and endoscopic modified Lothrop procedure (EMLP).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic surgical approach of sinonasal inverted papilloma: A case report and mini review

Dayinta Grahitanindya,

Ida Bagus Gede Hendra Kusuma,

Ida Bagus Semara Putra

et al. 2024

GSC Adv. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sinonasal inverted papilloma (SNIP) is a relatively rare benign tumor that occurs in 0.2-1.5 per 100.000 persons each year, comprising 0.5% - 4% of all sinonasal neoplasms. Despite being benign in nature, SNIP exhibits local aggressiveness due to its distinctive proliferation of metaplastic surface epithelium that undergoes inversion into the underlying stroma. Also, it carries a risk of malignant transformation. These characteristics thus emphasize the necessity for complete surgical excision as the primary treatment. A 50-year-old woman presented with sinonasal inverted papilloma classified as stage T2 according to Krouse staging, suitable for a less invasive endoscopic approach. However, CT scan revealed maxillary sinusitis. Adhering to SNIP management principles, a surgical excision through Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (ESS) followed by Endoscopic Modified Medial Maxillectomy (EMMM) or prelacrimal approach was chosen to provide better visualization of the anterior, lateral, posterior, inferior, and medial walls of the maxillary sinus. This approach aimed to preserve the inferior turbinate and nasolacrimal, avoiding postoperative lacrimation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic surgical approach of sinonasal inverted papilloma: A case report and mini review

Dayinta Grahitanindya,

Ida Bagus Gede Hendra Kusuma,

Ida Bagus Semara Putra

et al. 2024

GSC Adv. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcomes of sinonasal inverted papilloma resection by surgical approach: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Peng

Thamboo

Choby

et al. 2019

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSelecting the optimal surgical approach for resection of sinonasal inverted papilloma (SIP) remains a challenge, with endoscopic, external, and combined approaches being utilized. This systematic review was conducted as an update to a 2006 systematic review to determine the preferred surgical approach for tumor control.MethodsThe study protocol was developed a priori following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) process. Data were collected and outcomes were analyzed according to surgical approach and sites of tumor involvement.ResultsA total of 96 papers and 4134 SIP patients were included. The overall recurrence rate was 12.80% (322/2515) for the endoscopic approach group, 16.58% (182/1098) for the external approach group, and 12.60% (65/516) for the combined approach group. Meta‐analysis by random effects model showed that the summarized risk ratio (RR) of recurrence was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.85, p = 0.003), I2 = 37.95% for the endoscopic vs external approach; 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.39, p = 0.901), I2 = 9.06% for the endoscopic vs combined approach; 1.61 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.43, p = 0.025), I2 = 0.00% for the external vs combined approach. After adjusting for publication bias, the adjusted RRs were 0.66 (p = 0.014) for endoscopic vs external; 0.99 (p = 0.955) for endoscopic vs combined; and 1.33 (p = 0.224) for external vs combined.ConclusionAn enlarging and maturing body of literature continues to indicate that endoscopic approaches result in significantly lower recurrence rates than open approaches for surgical resection of SIP.

show abstract