medigraphic.com
ISSN 2539-0859 (Electronic)
ISSN 0120-8411 (Print)
Asociación Colombiana de Otorrinolaringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y cuello, Maxilofacial y Estética Facial (ACORL)

2025, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta de Otorrinolaringología CCC 2025; 53 (1)

Anatomical variables with potential risk profi le for papyrus lamina injury during nasal endoscopic surgery in computed tomography at the Hospital Militar Central

Díaz-Oliveros MA, González-Marín NR, Mora DC

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 76-84
PDF size: 315.10 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Accidental damage to the lamina papyracea during endoscopic en- donasal surgery is a common complication. Determining its position relative to the maxillary drainage ostium in preoperative tomographic analysis will allow us to reduce the risk of injury. Objective: This study aims to describe how these anato- mical risk variables are distributed. This imaging assessment was performed using computed tomography images of healthy patients over 18 years old who attended the Central Military Hospital between June 2019 and April 2022. Study design: Descriptive observational cross-sectional study. Materials and methods: A sample size calculation was performed where 410 computed tomography scans of healthy adult patients’ paranasal sinuses were randomly selected. The position of the lamina pa- pyracea on each side was categorized concerning the maxillary drainage ostium at the level of the inferior turbinate insertion in the lateral nasal wall. Results: A total of 410 tomographies were analyzed, revealing that the position of the lamina papyracea in relation to the medial antrostomy line (MAL) was classifi ed as type I in 65.1% to 69.8% of cases, type II in 28.8% to 22.4%, and type III in 6.1% to 7.8%. These fi ndings were consistent with previous studies, where type I was the most common position, followed by type II and, lastly, type III.


REFERENCES

  1. Christmas DA, Mirante JP, Yanagisawa E. 25 years of poweredendoscopic maxillary antrostomy. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017Mar;96(3):94-98. doi: 10.1177/014556131709600304

  2. Tajudeen BA, Kennedy DW. Thirty years of endoscopic sinussurgery: What have we learned? World J OtorhinolaryngolHead Neck Surg. 2017;3(2):115-121. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2016.12.001

  3. García-Garrigós E, Arenas-Jiménez JJ, Monjas-CánovasI, Abarca-Olivas J, Cortés-Vela JJ, De La Hoz-Rosa J, et al.Transsphenoidal Approach in Endoscopic Endonasal Surgeryfor Skull Base Lesions: What Radiologists and Surgeons Needto Know. Radiographics. 2015;35(4):1170-85. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140105

  4. Kennedy DW, Adappa ND. Endoscopic maxillary antrostomy:not just a simple procedure. Laryngoscope. 2011;121(10):2142-

  5. doi: 10.1002/lary.221695. Flint PW, Francis HW, Haughey BH, Lesperance MM, LundVJ, Robbins KT, et al. Cummings Otolaryngology Head andNeck Surgery. 7.a edición. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2021.

  6. Seredyka-Burduk M, Burduk PK, Wierzchowska M, KaluznyB, Malukiewicz G. Ophthalmic complications of endoscopicsinus surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;83(3):318-323.doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.04.006

  7. Bhatti MT. Neuro-ophthalmic complications of endoscopicsinus surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(6):450-8. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f0b47e

  8. Humphreys IM, Hwang PH. Avoiding Complications inEndoscopic Sinus Surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.2015;48(5):871-81. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2015.05.013.

  9. Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P. Endoscopicsinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyps: A systematicreview of safety and effectiveness. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20(5):506-19. doi: 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2923

  10. Bhatti MT, Schmalfuss IM, Mancuso AA. Orbitalcomplications of functional endoscopic sinus surgery: MR andCT findings. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(8):894-904. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2005.03.005

  11. Demirayak B, Altıntaş Ö, Ağır H, Alagöz Ş. Medial RectusMuscle Injuries after Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.Turk J Ophthalmol. 2015;45(4):175-178. doi: 10.4274/tjo.01328

  12. Herzallah IR, Marglani OA, Shaikh AM. Variations of laminapapyracea position from the endoscopic view: a retrospectivecomputed tomography analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.2015;5(3):263-70. doi: 10.1002/alr.21450

  13. Meyers RM, Valvassori G. Interpretation of anatomicvariations of computed tomography scans of the sinuses: asurgeon’s perspective. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(3):422-5. doi:10.1097/00005537-199803000-00020

  14. Hosemann W. Fehler und Gefahren: Eingriffe an denNasennebenhöhlen und der Frontobasis unter Berücksichtigungmediko-legaler Aspekte [Comprehensive review on dangerpoints, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopicsinus surgery]. Laryngorhinootologie. 2013;92 Suppl 1:S88-136. German. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1337908

  15. Nautiyal A, Narayanan A, Mitra D, Honnegowda TM,Sivakumar. Computed Tomographic Study of RemarkableAnatomic Variations in Paranasal Sinus Region and theirClinical Importance - A Retrospective Study. Ann MaxillofacSurg. 2020;10(2):422-428. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_192_19

  16. Mathew R, Omami G, Hand A, Fellows D, Lurie A. Cone beamCT analysis of Haller cells: prevalence and clinical significance.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(9):20130055. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20130055

  17. Aramani A, Karadi RN, Kumar S. A Study of AnatomicalVariations of Osteomeatal Complex in Chronic RhinosinusitisPatients-CT Findings. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(10):KC01-4.doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9323.4923

  18. Souza DAS, Costa FWG, de Mendonça DS, Ribeiro EC, deBarros Silva PG, Neves FS. Computed tomography assessmentof maxillary sinus hypoplasia and associated anatomicalvariations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of globalevidence. Oral Radiol. 2024;40(2):124-137. doi: 10.1007/s11282-023-00726-2

  19. Moulin G, Dessi P, Chagnaud C, Bartoli JM, Vignoli P, GaubertJY, et al. Dehiscence of the lamina papyracea of the ethmoidbone: CT findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15(1):151-3.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com