Preservation or removal of the lateral nasal wall in endoscopic management of maxillary sinus neoplasia: A comparison of approach related morbidity.

BACKGROUND: The endoscopic modified medial maxillectomy (MMM) and prelacrimal approach (PLA) are two routinely performed endoscopic approaches to the maxillary sinus when access via a middle meatal antrostomy is insufficient. However, there is no data in the literature that has compared outcomes and complication profile between the two procedures to determine which approach is superior. OBJECTIVE: To compare the approach related morbidity of PLA and MMM. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive adult patients undergoing either MMM or PLA from 2009 to 2023 were identified. The primary outcome was development of epistaxis, paraesthesia, lacrimal injury, iatrogenic sinus dysfunction within a minimum of 3 months post-operative follow up. RESULTS: 39 patients (44 sides) underwent PLA and 96 (96 sides) underwent MMM. There were no statistically significant differences between the rates of paraesthesia (9.1 % vs 14.6 %, p = 0.367) or prolonged paraesthesia (2.3 % vs 5.2 %, p = 0.426), iatrogenic maxillary sinus dysfunction (2.3 % vs 5.2 %, p = 0.426) or adhesions requiring removal (4.5 % vs 4.2 %, p = 0.918). No cases of epiphora or nasal cavity stenosis occurred in either arm in our study. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, the endoscopic modified medial maxillectomy and prelacrimal approach are both equally safe approaches with their own benefits to access.

Endoscopic-Modified Medial Maxillectomy for the Nonfunctioning Maxillary Sinus.

BACKGROUND: Middle meatal antrostomy (MMA) is the traditional intervention for chronic maxillary sinusitis but often fails to correct a nonfunctioning maxillary sinus that has lost its capability for mucociliary clearance. Endoscopic-modified medial maxillectomy (EMMM) can reshape the maxillary sinus and avoid a "sumping" effect, preventing secondary bacterial colonization, encouraging dependent drainage, and promoting effective nasal irrigation. OBJECTIVES: We describe a modification of the EMMM surgical technique in patients with recalcitrant maxillary sinusitis and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with nonfunctioning maxillary sinuses managed with EMMM were assessed. Primary outcomes were the resolution of the presenting symptom and the absence of mucostasis. Secondary outcomes were early (<90 days) and late (>90 days) morbidity. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (51.7 ± 17.5 years, 56.1% female) were assessed. Fifty-two patients had complete resolution of their presenting symptom (91.2% [95% CI: 80.7-97.1]) and 52 patients had an absence of mucostasis (91.2% [95% CI: 80.7-97.1]). Those with persistent crusting were also those with symptoms. Early morbidities included temporary dysesthesia (3.2%), bleeding (1.1%), and pain (3.2%), with no late morbidities. CONCLUSION: EMMM is a robust approach for salvaging a nonfunctioning maxillary sinus. The procedure enhances nasal irrigation, supplants mucociliary clearance, and discourages dependent mucus retention.

Prelacrimal Approach to Maxillary Sinus Pathology.

BACKGROUND: Access to the anterior, lateral, inferior, and inferomedial maxillary sinus has been a limitation of the middle meatal antrostomy. Expanded techniques such as the modified medial maxillectomy provide access to many of these areas but require remucosalization, and crusting can occur during the recovery phase. The prelacrimal approach (PLA) offers direct 0° endoscope access to these areas. Additionally, PLA can preserve the nasolacrimal duct and mucosal coverage. OBJECTIVES: We describe the current surgical technique and outcomes of PLA patients. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with pathology addressed by PLA to the maxillary sinus were assessed. The primary outcome was the restoration of the lateral wall, and the secondary outcomes were early (< 90 days) and late morbidity (> 90 days). RESULTS: Forty patients (52.8 ± 17 years, 62.5% female) were assessed. All patients had successful restoration of the lateral nasal wall (100% [95CI: 91.2%-100%]). The complications reported were primarily dysesthesia (early 10% and late 2.5%). CONCLUSION: The PLA provides robust access to the anterior, lateral, inferior, and inferomedial maxilla. PLA offers rapid mucosal recovery while preserving the normal physiology and the lacrimal systems with low morbidity.

Cochlear Implantation in Far Advanced Otosclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate speech outcomes and facial nerve stimulation (FNS) rates in patients with far advanced otosclerosis (FAO) after cochlear implantation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using standardized methodology of Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if adults with FAO underwent cochlear implantation. Exclusion criteria included concurrent otologic history (e.g., Meniere's disease, superior canal dehiscence), non-English-speaking implant users, case reports, abstracts, and letters/commentaries. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the National Institute of Health Scale for case series. The primary outcome measure was speech discrimination and the secondary outcomes were rates of partial insertion and FNS. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies evaluated cochlear implantation in FAO. Due to the heterogeneity of testing methods, statistical pooling of speech discrimination was not feasible, but qualitative synthesis indicated a positive effect of implantation. Pooled rates of FNS were 18% (95% confidence interval, CI 12%-27%) and the rate of partial insertion was 10% (95% CI 7%-15%). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation in FAO demonstrates significant gains in speech discrimination scores with higher rates of FNS and partial insertion. Laryngoscope, 133:1288-1296, 2023.

Columellar strut grafts versus septal extension grafts during rhinoplasty for airway function, patient satisfaction and tip support.

IMPORTANCE: Different techniques exist to provide tip support in rhinoplasty. There is little evidence to provide a consensus on the most effective choice. OBJECTIVE: Evaluating columellar strut graft (CSG) and septal extension grafts (SEG) for their influence on airway function, patient satisfaction and tip support. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken on 165 adult patients who underwent open rhinoplasty with either a CSG or SEG, from February 2012 to August 2019 in a single tertiary facial-plastic practice in Sydney, Australia. Operations were for both cosmetic and functional indications, and both primary and revision cases were assessed. Airway testing and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were performed preoperatively and at least 6 months following the procedure. Photographic tip analysis was taken from approximately 4 and 12-month postoperative photographs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF) and total nasal airway resistance (NAR) were the primary airway functional outcomes. The primary PROMs analysed were a visual analogue scale (VAS) for nasal obstruction and 13-point Likert scale for global cosmesis, the Nose Outcome Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), and the nasal obstruction score. Tip support was determined by the nasolabial angle (NLA) and Simon's ratio as assessed by Rhinobase developed by Apaydin et al. on lateral Frankfort plane photographs. Data normalised as an improvement over preoperative baseline, accounting for individual variability. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients was assessed (35.2 ± 12.9 yrs, 72% female), 100 (61%) of which received SEG. There were similar nasal airway assessments between CSG and SEG groups, with ΔNPIF (20.0 ± 42.1 L/min v 19.9 ± 44.9 L/min, p = 0.983) and Δ "obstructed" NAR (-1.13 ± 1.90 v -1.02 ± 4.33 Pa/cm3/s, p = 0.849). Amongst PROMs, a greater cosmetic outcome was seen in the SEG group (7.20 ± 2.97 v 5.69 ± 3.45, p < 0.01) with all other assessments similar between CSG and SEG techniques. Photographic analysis of tip projection showed reduced NLA distortion in the SEG. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: While greater patient-perceived cosmesis was seen in patients with a SEG, there were similar airflow and patient-reported nasal function between groups. Photographic analysis of tip projection showed SEG patients additionally benefited from less NLA distortion and greater tip maintenance.

The Effects of Lateral Crural Tensioning with an Articulated Alar Rim Graft Versus Lateral Crural Strut Graft on Nasal Function.

Importance: Nasal valve dysfunction can be addressed by various valve reinforcement techniques. There is no consensus on which technique is most efficacious. Objective: To evaluate lateral crural tensioning with articulated alar rim grafting (LCT/AARG) versus the lateral crural strut graft (LCSG) for their efficacy as nasal valve reinforcement techniques in rhinoplasty. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study was undertaken on patients who underwent either the LCT/AARG or LCSG as part of their rhinoplasty procedure. Airway testing was performed preoperatively and 6 months after the procedure, with data collected from February 2015 to July 2018 at a single tertiary rhinologic practice. Consecutive adults underwent open structure septorhinoplasty by one surgeon for both cosmetic and functional indications, as both primary and revision cases. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary functional outcomes analyzed were the nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF) and total nasal airway resistance (NAR). The primary patient-reported outcome measures analyzed were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for nasal obstruction, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), and nasal obstruction score. Data were also normalized as a percentage improvement over preoperative baseline, to account for individual variability. Results: In total 94 participants were recruited (33.7 ± 11.7 years, 85.3% female) with 26.6% in the LCT/AARG group and 73.4% in the LCSG group. Change in NAR (ΔNAR) was significantly better in the AARG group (-18.73 ± 26.84 Pa/cc3 vs. 15.07 ± 55.57 Pa/cc3, p < 0.001). In addition, NAR improved significantly when analysis was isolated to the LCT/AARG group (0.414 ± 0.255 Pa/(cc3·s) vs. 0.291 ± 0.116 Pa/(cc3·s), Δ = -0.122 Pa/(cc3·s), p = 0.004) despite change in NAR being insignificant for the entire study population after surgery (0.370 ± 0.177 Pa/(cc3·s) vs. 0.349 ± 0.152 Pa/(cc3·s), Δ = 0.021, p = 0.320). There were no significant differences between the study groups in ΔNPIF (15.85 ± 31.48 L/min vs. 8.20 ± 30.12 L/min, p = 0.285), ΔVAS (35.77 ± 130.52 vs. 31.38 ± 73.19, p = 0.838), ΔNOSE (-73.60 ± 25.43 vs. -27.31 ± 123.44, p = 0.085), and Δnasal obstruction (64% experiencing improvement vs. 63.2% experiencing improvement, p = 0.097). Conclusions and Relevance: LCT/AARG demonstrated benefit in total NAR over the LCSG. There were no other significant functional differences between the two techniques.