Role of osteoplastic frontal sinus obliteration in the era of endoscopic sinus surgery

The role of the osteoplastic flap in the endoscopic era: a retrospective multicentre experience on revision surgery

Objective

To retrospectively review the experience of five tertiary-care university hospitals on frontal sinus revision surgery with osteoplastic flap (OPF).

Methods

Descriptive analysis of patients who underwent frontal sinus surgery with OPF after one or more endoscopic procedures for benign and inflammatory pathologies from 2000 to 2022. Clinical charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, clinical presentation, previous frontal procedures, OPF technique and outcomes.

Results

Of the 124 patients who underwent an OPF procedure, 33 met inclusion criteria. With a mean of 2.1 previous endoscopic surgeries, Draf III was the most common former procedure. In 30 (91%) cases OPF was part of a combined procedure. The most common indications were inverted papilloma (61%), mucocele (9%) and chronic rhinosinusitis (6%). Frontal outflow stenosis (36%) and mucocele (9%) were the most frequent complications observed. Improvement of overall symptoms and patient satisfaction after the OPF procedure were recorded.

Conclusions

Even in the endoscopic era, OPF still represents a paramount procedure that should be included in the rhino-surgeon's armamentarium, in particular in patients with challenging pathologies and anatomy when previous endoscopic endonasal attempts have failed.

[History of frontal sinus surgery and current view of the problem. Part 2]

Surgical treatment of inflammatory diseases of the frontal sinus is one of the biggest challenges of modern otorhinolaryngology. Close proximity of the frontal sinus and frontal sinus drainage pathways to the skull base, the orbit and the anterior ethmoid artery, great limitations with its visualization and instrumentation, and high risk of the frontal recess scarring cause difficulties in either endoscopic or external approaches to the frontal sinus. At the same time endoscopic approach to the frontal sinus is considered as preferred method of frontal sinusitis surgical treatment by majority of peers nowadays. The introduction of extended approaches to the frontal sinus pathology treatment with frontal sinus floor and interfrontal sinus septum drill-out as well as superior septectomy with common drainage pathway formation gave an opportunity to greatly decrease a rate of indications for external frontal sinus procedures. In this paper historical backgrounds of endonasal approaches to frontal sinuses are presented, current controversies in proper selection of extent and methods of the frontal sinus surgery are analyzed and endoscopic as well as external approaches to frontal sinuses are summarized.

Navigation Assisted Frontal Sinus Osteoplastic Flap Surgeries - A Case Series

Osteoplastic flap surgery of the frontal sinus is still a relevant surgical technique for frontal sinus pathologies despite advancements in endoscopic techniques due to the complex anatomy of frontal sinus and limitations of endoscopic techniques for certain pathologies. The most crucial step in this surgery is accurate delineation of the frontal sinus pneumatisation which guides the osteotomies and this is conventionally done with radiographs which is not without errors. Here we present three cases where we have utilized image guidance technology for osteoplastic flap surgery of the frontal sinus with superior results.

Imaging After Sinonasal Surgery

Posttreatment imaging evaluation of sinuses encompasses a wide gamut of procedures, ranging from endoscopic procedures for sinonasal inflammatory diseases to markedly radical surgeries for malignant neoplasms (with or without reconstructions), as well as providing access for surgeries involving the anterior and central skull base. Advances in both techniques and devices have expanded the use of endoscopic approaches in managing both benign and malignant lesions, in addition to being the primary surgical method for treating all medically refractive sinonasal inflammatory disorders. Familiarity with the complex anatomy in the sinonasal region and knowledge of the various procedures is indispensable in interpreting these imaging studies.

Obliterative sinusitis: An underreported clinical entity

Obliterative paranasal sinusitis is a rare sequela and end stage of chronic rhinosinusitis, which is often overlooked on imaging. It is an exuberant form of neo-osteogenesis characterized by complete or partial obliteration of the sinus cavity by new bone formation. This article presents a series of cases of obliterative sinusitis involving the sphenoid and maxillary sinuses. It is important to comment on the presence of obliterative sinusitis in the radiology report and not confuse it for native bone, fibro-osseous lesion, or arrested pneumatization, as this may have clinical implications for patients being considered for surgery. Given its potential implications for severity of sinusitis as well as prognostic significance for outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery, awareness and timely identification of this entity is important to guide referring clinicians.

Traumatic Frontal Sinus Fractures Management: Experience from High-Trauma Centre

Objective

Analysis of our traumatic brain injury data, reviewing current literatures and assessing planning valuable decision making in frontal sinus fracture for young neurosurgeons.

Methods

Hospital data base for head trauma was retrieved after board permission for retrospective analysis of cases admitted from 2010-2020. Patients with frontal sinus fractures and head trauma were identified according to a flow chart. Variables of the study included patients' demographics, mechanism of injury, incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, types of associated injuries, imaging findings and operative techniques.

Results

Three-hundred eighty two patients were eligible to be screened in our study and represented the sample size under investigations in the following sections, 206 (53.9%) of patients were treated conservatively while 176 patients (46.1%) were identified as having an indication for surgical intervention. Eighty-four percent of patients were males. The mean age was 36.2±9.4 years (14-86 years). Depressed skull fracture was commonly associated injury (17.61%). Leakage of CSF was found in 32.95% of patients.

Conclusion

Frontal sinus fracture is not an easy scenario. It harbors many proportions and deliver many varieties in which, deep understanding of anatomy, naso-frontal outflow tract status, CSF leakage and neurological injury are of important points in decision. Our institutional algorithm provide rapid, accessible and applicable treatment protocol for resident and young neurosurgeons which minimizes consultations of other specialties.

Indications and Outcomes of the Osteoplastic Flap Procedure With or Without Obliteration

OBJECTIVE

To describe the osteoplastic approach and to perform a systematic review of the indications and outcomes of the osteoplastic flap procedure for frontal sinus surgeries with or without obliteration.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases.

REVIEW METHODS

All published studies in the English language on the osteoplastic flap with or without obliteration were identified from 1905 to 2018. All studies with <20 patients were excluded. The number of patients, technique, indications, follow-up period, symptom relief, revision rates, and complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A systematic review yielded 25 series containing 1374 patients for analysis. Indications for surgery included chronic frontal sinusitis, mucoceles, fractures or traumas, osteomas, neoplasms, and cerebrospinal fluid leak. The mean follow-up period ranged from 12.8 to 144 months. The percentage of patients needing revisions for frontal sinus disease was 6.2%. There was a high rate of symptomatic improvement (85.0%) and a low rate of major complications (0.7%). However, minor complications occurred in 19.4% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The osteoplastic flap with or without obliteration has many indications. In an era where endoscopic technique provides excellent access to the frontal sinuses, external approaches remain a useful adjunct, and/or salvage technique. In experienced hands, the osteoplastic flap can yield excellent long-term clinical results, with low rates of complications. Regardless of the surgical approach, long-term follow-up is necessary due to the recurrent nature of frontal sinus disease.

Quality of Life Outcomes in Frontal Sinus Surgery

Introduction: Although significant experience has been gained in the technical nuances of endoscopic sinus surgery procedures, the patient-reported outcomes of frontal endoscopic sinus surgery procedures are still poorly understood. In this study we used the validated patient outcome measure Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) to assess the preoperative and postoperative quality of life in patients undergoing extended endoscopic frontal sinus surgery (Draf type 2 and Draf type 3 procedures). Methods: Out of a total of 680 patients undergoing endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery and 186 patients undergoing frontal sinus surgery, 99 chronic rhinosinusitis patients with (CRSwNP) or without (CRSnNP) nasal polyps undergoing Draf 2 or Draf 3 were assessed. Results: The mean preoperative SNOT-22 was 45.6 points for patients undergoing Draf 2 and 59 for patients undergoing Draf 3, while the mean radiological Lund–Mackay Score was 14.3 and 14.5, respectively. Mean SNOT 22 improvement was 22.9 points for Draf 2 and 37 points for Draf 3 respectively and remained significant in all time intervals, including at 4 years after surgery. With the exception of loss of smell/taste, all symptoms improved by a far bigger extent in Draf 3 group, despite the considerably worse starting point. Effect size (Cohen / Standard Deviations) of Draf 3 was greatest in the following symptoms: “being frustrated/restless/irritable” (1.63), “nasal blockage” (1.43), “reduced concentration” (1.35), “fatigue” (1.29) “runny nose” (1.26) and “need to blow nose” (1.17). Frontal sinus (neo) ostium was patent (fully or partly) at last follow up in 98% of Draf 2 patients and in 88% of patients following Draf 3. Patients with non-patent frontal (neo-) ostium however had a mean postoperative SNOT 22 score of 43 compared to 20 of those with patent frontal sinus (neo-) ostium, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients undergoing Draf 3 have a greater burden of disease, including both nasal and emotional/general symptoms compared to Draf 2 patients; surgery results in improvement in both groups, although Draf 3 patients have the greatest benefit, especially in emotional / general symptons. In this way both groups achieve similar postoperative quality of life, despite the different starting points.

Bilateral Versus Unilateral Cranialization in the Management of a Breached Frontal Sinus

BACKGROUND

Frontal sinus breach during craniotomy may occur inadvertently or intentionally. Management of a breached frontal sinus is controversial as numerous operative techniques have been described. Frontal sinus breach may result in life-threatening complications, require additional surgeries, and increase the risk for long-term infectious sequelae. A literature review found a paucity of neurosurgical reports examining breached frontal sinus management or specific analyses of unilateral versus bilateral frontal sinus cranialization.

OBJECTIVE

A frontal sinus cranialization technique employed for patients involving frontal sinus breach and analyze outcomes managed with bilateral versus unilateral cranialization was presented in this study.

METHODS

A retrospective review of outcomes was performed using our Institutional Review Board-approved surgical case database between September 2012 and September 2018.

RESULTS

Thirty-three frontal sinus cranializations following frontal sinus breach were identified. Average follow-up time was 25 months. A statistically significant difference in postoperative infections was observed in patients with a history of previous cranial surgery who underwent unilateral compared to bilateral frontal sinus cranialization.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest surgeons performing craniotomy or consulted intraoperatively for suspected frontal sinus breach should have a high suspicion for breached frontal sinus and a low threshold for frontal sinus cranialization. Furthermore, when performing frontal sinus cranialization, surgeons should consider performing bilateral, instead of unilateral, cranialization in patients with a history of previous craniotomy as bilateral cranialization was shown to decrease the risk of postoperative infection.

First results of frontal sinus obliteration with a synthetic, resorbable and osteoconductive bone graft of ß-tricalcium phosphate

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in endoscopic sinus surgery, frontal sinus obliteration is still indicated in some cases. Current options for obliteration include autologous and synthetic materials. The use of ß-tricalcium phosphate as a resorbable bone graft substitute is a good alternative for frontal sinus obliteration. This study aimed to report our experience with this material.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent frontal sinus obliteration at our clinic between 2008 and 2013 was performed. Demographic data, indications, previous surgery, and immediate and late complications were examined. Information on persisting symptoms and patient outcomes was collected using a telephone questionnaire in February 2016.

RESULTS

None of the patients underwent further surgery for frontal sinus disease. All of them reported a good cosmetic result and symptom improvement.

CONCLUSION

ß-tricalcium phosphate is a good, safe and cost-effective material for frontal sinus obliteration.

Indications for open procedures in the endoscopic era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic sinus surgery became the gold standard in inflammatory disorders of the nose and paranasal sinuses, in cerebrospinal fluid leak and epistaxis management, and established its efficacy in the oncology of the region. However, there are certain limitations which make an external approach mandatory. This article reviews the recent literature describing the cases where an open procedure is still indicated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the evolution of endoscopic surgery external approaches are still indicated. Osteoplastic flap remains an option for the refractory inflammation of the frontal sinus. Benign and malignant tumours with lateral or superior extension, neurovascular involvement, and bony/soft tissue erosion usually require an external approach. Superior and lateral posterior wall defects of frontal sinus with cerebrospinal fluid leak may mandate an open procedure. Management of severe epistaxis may still necessitate in selected cases an external approach when endoscopic surgery fails and embolization setting is not available.

SUMMARY

Although advances in endoscopic instrumentation and techniques steadily decrease the indications for external approaches, they continue to have a role in the management of nasal disorders. This study summarizes the recent literature and provides a comprehensive review of the up-to-date remaining indications for open procedures in the nose and paranasal sinuses.

Geographic and temporal trends in frontal sinus surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate geographic and temporal trends in frontal sinus surgery procedures.

METHODS

Medicare Part B data files from 2000 to 2011 were examined for temporal trends in various frontal sinus procedures, and the most recent year containing geographic information (2010) was evaluated for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code use. Additionally, nationwide charges per procedure were recorded. Regional populations of individuals ≥ 65 years old were obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census, and surgical society websites were used to determine the number of practicing rhinologists and otolaryngologists in each region.

RESULTS

The use of open approaches declined by one third, while endoscopic procedures went from 6463 to 19262 annually, with the most marked increases occurring from 2006 through 2011. Geographic variation was noted, with practitioners in the South Atlantic states performing the greatest number of endoscopic procedures in 2010, whereas the East South Central states had the greatest number when controlling for population. There was an inverse relationship between endoscopic procedures performed and number of fellowship-trained rhinologists (controlling for regional populations) (R(2) = 0.66). The first year frontal sinus ballooning had a unique CPT code illustrated decreased reimbursements for non-balloon endoscopic surgery ($609) relative to balloon approaches ($2635).

CONCLUSION

Declines in open frontal sinus surgery and marked increases in endoscopic approaches have potential implications for residency training. Potential reasons for marked increases in endoscopic approaches include the rising popularity of balloon technologies, although this is speculative. Geographic variation exists in frontal sinus surgery patterns, including an inverse relationship between endoscopic approaches and the number of fellowship-trained rhinologists.

Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To analyze trends in the surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles through meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and case series.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles was conducted. Studies were divided into historical (1975-2001) and contemporary (2002-2012) groups. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed. The historical and contemporary cohorts were compared (surgical approach, recurrence, and complications). To study evolution in surgical management, a senior surgeon's experience over 28 years was analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included for meta-analysis. The historical cohort included 425 mucoceles from 11 studies. The contemporary cohort included 542 mucoceles from 20 studies. More endoscopic techniques were used in the contemporary versus historical cohort (53.9% vs. 24.7%; P = <0.001). In the authors' series, a higher percentage was treated endoscopically (82.8% of 122 mucoceles). Recurrence (P = 0.20) and major complication (P = 0.23) rates were similar between cohorts. Minor complication rates were superior for endoscopic techniques in both cohorts (P = 0.02 historical; P = <0.001 contemporary). In the historical cohort, higher recurrence was noted in the external group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from endoscopic and open approaches are comparable. Although endoscopic techniques are being increasingly adopted, comparison with our series shows that more cases could potentially be treated endoscopically. Frequent use of open approaches may reflect efficacy, or perhaps lack of expertise and equipment required for endoscopic management. Most contemporary authors favor endoscopic management, limiting open approaches for specific indications (unfavorable anatomy, lateral disease, and scarring).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.