Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:47:38.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transnasal inferior meatal antrostomy with a mucosal flap for post-Caldwell–Luc mucoceles in the maxillary sinus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

M Suzuki ,
T Matsumoto ,
M Yokota ,
K Toyoda  and
Y Nakamura
M Suzuki*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, Japan
T Matsumoto
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, Japan
M Yokota
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, Japan
K Toyoda
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, Japan
Y Nakamura
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, Japan
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Motohiko Suzuki, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nagoya City University, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +81 52 851 5300
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Transnasal inferior meatal antrostomy is increasingly used for the treatment of post-Caldwell–Luc mucoceles in maxillary sinus. This study aimed to report the outcomes after inferior meatal antrostomy with a mucosal flap for recurrent mucoceles.

Method

The records of patients who had undergone transnasal inferior meatal antrostomy with or without a mucosal flap were reviewed.

Results

Transnasal endoscopic inferior meatal antrostomy with or without a mucosal flap was performed in 21 and 49 patients, respectively. No complications were observed. A closing of the antrostomy was found in 9 (18.4 per cent) of the 49 patients who underwent antrostomy without a mucosal flap. No closings were observed in the 21 patients who underwent antrostomy with a mucosal flap. There was a significant difference in the rate of closing for surgery with and without the mucosal flap.

Conclusion

Transnasal endoscopic inferior meatal antrostomy with a mucosal flap is a safe method for the treatment of post-Caldwell–Luc maxillary mucoceles that effectively prevents recurrence.

Keywords

Maxillary SinusMucoceleRecurrenceSurgical Flaps
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 674 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr M Suzuki takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Simoes, JC, Nogueira-Neto, FB, Gregorio, LL, Caparroz Fde, A, Kosugi, EM. Visual loss: a rare complication of maxillary sinus mucocele. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2015;81:451–3Google Scholar
2Devars du Mayne, M, Moya-Plana, A, Malinvaud, D, Laccourreye, O, Bonfils, P. Sinus mucocele: natural history and long-term recurrence rate. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2012;129:125–30Google Scholar
3Huang, CC, Chen, CW, Lee, TJ, Chang, PH, Chen, YW, Chen, YL et al. Transnasal endoscopic marsupialization of postoperative maxillary mucoceles: middle meatal antrostomy versus inferior meatal antrostomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:1583–7Google Scholar
4Makeieff, M, Gardiner, Q, Mondain, M, Crampette, L. Maxillary sinus mucocoeles--10 cases--8 treated endoscopically. Rhinology 1998;36:192–5Google Scholar
5Caylakli, F, Yavuz, H, Cagici, AC, Ozluoglu, LN. Endoscopic sinus surgery for maxillary sinus mucoceles. Head Face Med 2006;2:29Google Scholar
6Lee, JY, Baek, BJ, Byun, JY, Shin, JM. Long-term efficacy of inferior meatal antrostomy for treatment of postoperative maxillary mucoceles. Am J Otolaryngol 2014;35:727–30Google Scholar
7Albu, S, Dutu, AG. Concurrent middle and inferior meatus antrostomy for the treatment of maxillary mucoceles. Clujul Med 2017;90:392–5Google Scholar
8Elwan, S. A randomized study comparing DCR with and without excision of the posterior mucosal flap. Orbit 2003;22:7–13Google Scholar
9Sham, CL, van Hasselt, CA. Endoscopic terminal dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1045–9Google Scholar
10Wormald, PJ. Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 2002;112:69–72Google Scholar
11Mueller, SK, Freitag, SK, Lefebvre, DR, Bleier, BS. Endoscopic DCR using bipedicled interlacing mucosal flaps. Laryngoscope 2018;128:794–7Google Scholar
12Durr, ML, Goldberg, AN. Endoscopic partial medial maxillectomy with mucosal flap for maxillary sinus mucoceles. Am J Otolaryngol 2014;35:115–19Google Scholar
13Ono, N, Ito, S, Homma, H, Okada, H, Murata, J, Ikeda, K. Endoscopic endonasal management of recurrent maxillary mucoceles using biliary T-tube stenting. Ear Nose Throat J 2017;96:469–7610.1177/014556131709601208Google Scholar