Endoscopic management of frontal sinus diseases after frontal craniotomy: a case series and review of the literature.

PURPOSE: To evaluate frontal sinus complications developed after previous external craniotomies requiring frontal sinus reconstruction and their treatment with an endoscopic approach. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 22 patients who referred to Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital and Bellaria Hospital (Bologna, Italy) between 2005 and 2017. All patients presented with frontal sinus disease after frontal craniotomy with sinus reconstruction performed to treat various pathological conditions. We reported our experience in the endoscopic management of such complications and we reviewed the current literature concerning the endoscopic treatment of these conditions. RESULTS: In total, 14 frontal mucoceles, 4 cases of chronic frontal sinusitis, 2 mucopyoceles and 2 fungus ball of the frontal sinus were identified. Endoscopic surgical treatment included 7 DRAF IIa, 1 DRAF IIb, 11 DRAF III and 3 DRAF IIc (modified DRAF III) approaches. The success rate of the surgical procedure was 86% (19/22 patients). Recurrence of the initial pathology occurred in three patients (14%) requiring a conversion of previous frontal sinusotomy into a DRAF III sinusotomy. CONCLUSION: Frontal sinusopathy can be a long-term complication following craniotomies and may lead to potentially severe pathological conditions, such as mucoceles and frontal sinus inflammation. Its management is still debated and requires recovery of the patency of nasal-frontal route. Our study confirms that the endoscopic endonasal approach may offer a valid solution with low morbidity avoiding re-opening of the craniotomic access. For selected cases, endoscopic approach could also be performed simultaneously to craniotomy as a combined surgery to reduce the risk of short- and long-term complications. Long-term follow-up is mandatory in patients with a history of opened and reconstructed frontal sinus and should include imaging and endoscopic outpatient evaluation.

Sentinel node biopsy versus elective neck dissection in early-stage oral cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To provide a summary of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of two surgical treatment strategies, sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and elective neck dissection (END), in patients with T1-T2 oral cancer and clinically negative (cN0) neck, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and neck recurrence rates (NRRs). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by including studies published up to April 2019. Meta-analysis was performed to compare NRRs between SNB and END. A narrative summary of the results was generated for OS, DFS and morbidity outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: No randomized studies were retrieved. Five observational studies were included in the comparative effectiveness analysis and four observational studies were included in the comparative morbidity analysis. The pooled risk ratio showed no differences in NRRs between SNB and END (10.5% vs 11.6%; pooled RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.67-1.76). No differences in OS or DFS between the two treatments were found. SNB appears to be associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and lower shoulder dysfunction than END. Conversely, the results of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are not sufficient to advocate a particular strategy. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the lack of well conducted and randomized studies comparing SNB to END, leading to poor clinical evidence. Although our findings suggest no significant differences in OS, DFS and NRR between the two strategies, the certainty of our evidence is too low to make it useful for clinical decision making.