[History of frontal sinus surgery and current view of the problem. Part 2]. / Istoriya khirurgii lobnoi pazukhi i sovremennyi vzglyad na problemu. Chast' 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.

[History of frontal sinus surgery and current view of the problem. Part 1]. / Istoriya khirurgii lobnoi pazukhi i sovremennyi vzglyad na problemu. Chast' 1.

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.

The Frontal Sinus Drainage in Relation to Frontal Sinus Surgery.

In order to perform a successful endoscopic frontal sinus surgery, prevent complications, and lower the recurrence risk, it is essential to understand the anatomy of the frontal sinus (FS) and frontal recess cells with many variations in frontal sinus drainage (FSD). Preoperative assessment of the FSD in three levels in order to find prognostic factors in the decision process regarding the kind and the extent of surgery when required. Three FSD levels were assessed by computed tomography in two dimensions; antero-posteriorly and laterally in 100 consecutive patients with chronic sinusitis symptoms. The first level represents the proper drainage of FS. The second level is the drainage of FS without the effect of the frontoethmoidal cells. The third level is the maximum drainage that can be achieved in a single FS. The relation of FSD levels to FS and frontoethmoidal cells pathology were assisted. Within 100 patients (200 sides, 186 FSs), for the proper FSD, antero-posterior (AP) length was 5.94 ± 3.42 mm in opaque FS and 5.32 ± 2.87 mm in clear FS and its lateral length was 3.04 ± 1.6 mm in opaque FS and 2.30 ± 1.25 mm in clear FS. For the functional FSD, AP length was 8.97 ± 2.7 mm in opaque FS and 8.05 ± 2.7 mm in clear FS and its lateral length was 7.51 ± 1.69 mm in opaque FS and 7.58 ± 1.75 mm in clear FS. In the anatomical FSD, AP length was 11.25 ± 3.07 mm in opaque FS and 10.01 ± 2.87 mm in clear FS and its lateral length was 11.1 ± 2.6 mm in opaque FS and 10.95 ± 1.7 mm in clear FS. This study offers essential data for preoperative assessment in order to improve surgeons' awareness of the frontoethmoidal region for optimal safe EFSS with lower incidence of complications and recurrences.

A Review of the Different Intraoperative Findings of Revision Endoscopic Frontal Surgery.

A revision endoscopic sinus surgery (rESS) is considered when the primary surgery fails to improve the symptoms or causes problems. The rESS is still a difficult surgical procedure, despite the use of imaging-guided surgical navigation systems, because the anatomical landmarks are removed or scarred. To determine the causes and indications of rESS observed radiologically or endoscopically in patients with frontal rhinosinusitis. This retrospective clinical study was conducted between 2010 and 2019 in the Ear, Nose, and Throat Department of King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Sixty cases were indicated for revision endoscopic surgery, and all had distorted or lost anatomical landmarks. Most landmark losses were caused by undissected uncinate processes and residual agger nasi with/without ethmoid disease. The rESS surgical procedure remains difficult, despite the use of imaging-guided surgical navigation systems, because most of the anatomical landmarks are removed or scarred. An undissected uncinate process, residual agger nasi with/without ethmoid disease, extensive mucosal disease with polyps obstructing the frontal recess, and lateralized middle turbinates are the most common conditions requiring rESS.

Preventing and Managing Complications in Frontal Sinus Surgery.

This review covers potential complications of frontal sinus surgical management and strategies for prevention of these complications. Accordingly, recent advances in frontal sinus surgical techniques are described, and the management of complications stemming both from these and traditional techniques are detailed.

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.

Unilateral transnasal endoscopic approach to frontal sinuses: Draf IIc.

For chronic sinusitis surgery, the Draf III approach provides a common median drainage pathway for bilateral frontal sinuses from orbit to orbit. The Draf IIb provides unilateral drainage from orbit to septum. In several cases, inclusion of the nasal and frontal sinus septum in a Draf IIb was advantageous without extension to the opposite frontal recess. The proposed nomenclature is Draf IIc. This study was designed to (1) develop a surgical option for chronic frontal sinusitis where access to one frontal recess is limited or unnecessary and (2) minimize unnecessary surgical manipulation of uninvolved areas. Revision endoscopic frontal sinus surgery was performed on two patients with persistent frontal sinus opacification. Surgery crossed midline including one frontal recess with resection of the superior nasal septum. The surgical result was assessed on endoscopy and computed tomography (CT). The postoperative course was unremarkable with relief of frontal pressure. Postoperative CT scan showed well-aerated frontal sinuses with a widely patent common drainage pathway. Postoperative nasal endoscopy revealed normal mucosa with no exposed bone or edema. The Draf IIc extends the Draf IIb across the midline, without including the opposite frontal recess. This can be accomplished most easily using an interfrontal sinus septal cell or an eccentric interfrontal sinus septum. The Draf IIc is a surgical option in cases of chronic or recalcitrant frontal sinus diseases, including unilateral or bilateral obstruction, where access to the ipsilateral frontal recess is limited or favorable anatomy allows drainage with reduced manipulation of an uninvolved side.

Factors affecting the outcome of frontal sinus surgery: a prospective study.

Chronic frontal sinus disease has always been a difficult problem to treat. We undertook this study to evaluate our results of frontal recess surgery, to determine the factors which affected the surgical outcome and to determine whether the post-operative findings correlated with the symptomatic improvement in the patients. Twenty-four patients with chronic sinus pathologies involving the frontal sinus were included in this study. After failure of maximal medical treatment, they were subjected to endoscopic surgery. The factors assessed included the pneumatisation of the frontal recess on CT scan, the technique of surgery, the intra-operative frontal glow, the state of the frontal recess at the end of surgery, the appearance of the recess on follow-up endoscopy and the symptomatic relief in the patients. 81.2% of well pneumatised frontal recesses had a good outcome while only 42.1% of the poorly pneumatised frontal recesses had a good outcome. 76.2% of cases with a frontal glow seen intra-operatively had a favourable surgical result while 44.4% of cases without a frontal glow intra-operatively had a favourable surgical result. Two-thirds (66.7%) of cases with mucosa-lined frontal recess did well post-operatively while only 33.3% of cases with a raw frontal recess did well following surgery. Well pneumatised frontal recesses, presence of an intra-operative frontal glow and a mucosa-lined frontal recess corresponded with better post-surgical outcomes. A difference in the intra-operative technique did not influence the result after surgery. Nineteen out of 24 patients (79.2%) were asymptomatic after surgery while 5 patients had residual symptoms.