RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Angiofibromas classically develop in the lateral wall of the nasopharynx from the sphenopalatine region. Extra-nasopharyngeal angiofibromas are rare entities, with the maxillary sinus being the most common site. Parapharyngeal angiofibroma is an extremely rare entity, being seldom reported in English literature. CASE REPORT: We present a case of parapharyngeal angiofibroma, which came as a diagnostic surprise in a young adult 25-year-old male. The radiological picture showed a highly vascular lesion, which did draw our attention for not going for a direct or guided FNAC, and upfront excision was planned through the transcervical route. A firm 5 * 7 cm mass was excised and sent for histopathologic examination. The histopathology showed angiofibroma like features as a diagnostic surprise as angiofibroma of parapharyngeal space is a known but rare entity. CONCLUSION: The knowledge of angiofibroma as a differential in parapharyngeal space will help the clinicians to properly deal with these disorders during preoperative evaluation and definitive surgery and thus prevent the chances of vascular injuries and complications associated with an FNAC. A high level of suspicion regarding this differential as a possible lesion in the parapharynx is required for the entity's diagnosis.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare mucociliary clearance time and quality of life in patients who underwent sinus surgery using conventional and powered instruments, and in patients who were treated nonsurgically. METHODS: A total of 151 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were included. Fifty-four patients were treated conservatively, 48 patients were managed surgically by using conventional instruments and 49 patients were managed by using a microdebrider. Kupferberg nasal endoscopy grades, 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores, Lund-Mackay scores, and mucociliary clearance time were analyzed. RESULTS: On comparison among the groups, it was found that there was a significant difference between group A (nonsurgically treated) compared with group B (surgery by conventional means) or group C (surgery with microdebrider) in nasal endoscopic grades, Lund-Mackay scores, 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores, and mucociliary clearance time. However, in comparison between groups B and C, there was no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: Mucociliary clearance time tended to recover after starting treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis both after conservative treatment and after surgical treatment. Surgery provided better improvement in different objective scores in chronic rhinosinusitis. There exists no statistical difference in parameters independent of the instrument used for surgery.
