Endoscopic surgery of a sinonasal inverted papilloma: Surgical strategy, follow-up, and recurrence rate.

BACKGROUND: Sinonasal inverted papilloma (SNIP) is noted for its high rate of recurrence and malignant transformation. Although many clinical studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the endoscopic approach for SNIP, the surgical strategy has been the subject of much debate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the endoscopic endonasal approach in SNIP. METHODS: A systematic review of patients with a diagnosis of SNIP and who had surgery at our institution from June 2005 to March 2013 was performed. All the patients who had postoperative follow-up for >2 years were enrolled. Each case was categorized into one of four stages as reported by Krouse. Demographic and tumor date, operative approach, complications, and recurrence rates were collected. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included in this study. There were 17 patients in stage 1, 40 in stage 2, 57 in stage 3, and 11 in stage 4. The overall recurrence rate was 8.0%. There was no significant difference in recurrence among the stages (all p > 0.05). Recurrence after endoscopic endonasal approach (8.4%) and a combined endoscopic and open exposure procedure (5.6%) were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The recurrence rate was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in patients with revision (15.6%) than in patients in the primary cases (3.8%). A common site of tumor origin was recorded to be from the maxillary sinus (40.2%). Twenty percent of recurrences were observed up to 5 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic surgery may be preferred for treating SNIP. The elevated recurrence rate after revision emphasized the significance of the first surgery. We encourage a follow-up period of at least 5 years.

[Clinical research on nasal endoscopic surgery for rhinogenous optic function damage].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the surgical treatment of rhinogenous optic function damage (ROFD) through transnasal endoscopic approach. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (25 eyes) with ROFD were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were operated on through transnasal endoscopic approach, and 9 patients underwent endoscopic optic nerve decompression. RESULTS: Four patients had bilateral pansinusitis, 6 patients had unilateral posterior ethmoidal sinusitis and sphenoiditis. One patient had frontal and ethmoidal sinusitis. Five patients had fungal sinusitis occurred in the sphenoid sinus and unilateral posterior ethmoid sinus. Two patients had unilateral pyocyst and cyst of the sphenoid and ethmoid sinus. The preoperative visual acuity preoperative were as follows: 2 patients (2 eyes) no light perception (NLP), 6 patients (7 eyes) hand movement (HM), 7 patients (7 eyes) fingers counting (FC) less than 20 cm and 8 patients (9 eyes) were vision impaired in different degree. One patient (1 eye) was ophthalmoptosis, direct and indirect light reflex vanished. Three patients (3 eyes) diplopia, 2 patients (2 eyes) abduction paralysis, 3 patients (3 eyes) defect of visual field. One patient ptosis of upper lid. The visual acuity postoperative: 2 eyes failed, 10 eyes cured;13 eyes improved from HM or FC to FC (30-60 cm). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic sinus surgery combined with appropriate medical therapy are effective to ROFD. Patients who suffered from severe visual damage and either unresponsive or intolerant to medical treatment should be administrated endoscopic sinus surgery including endoscopic optic nerve decompression.