Villagra SE, Rodríguez PMA, Montiel GE

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 29-33
PDF size: 200.71 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Endoscopic sinnus surgery, especially nasal polyps resection, has been a procedure of choice in most patients actually.
Objective: To compare endoscopic surgery assisted by navigator to conventional endoscopic surgery for the treatment of nasal polyposis.
Material and methods: A longitudinal, prospective, analytic, observational and cohort study included 20 patients with nasal polyposis operated during November 2003 to February 2005, 10 of them with an endoscopic procedure asisted by navigator (group A) and 10 with a conventional endoscopic operation (group B). Surgical time was controlled in all patients, who were release the next day.
Resultados: Mean difference in surgical time between methods was of 12.5 minutes, because in the assisted process it was necessary calibration of the equipment. In the group A there were not complications, but in the group B there was a disruption in papyraceus plate (5%) and a cerebrospinal fluid fistula (5%).
Conclusions: Modern navigation systems are easy to handle in dairy practice. The minimal invasive sinus surgery in head and neck came hand to hand with the development of new equipment of guided image to help surgeon in localization of anatomic elements in surgery. Surgical navigation systems use computed references to monitorize endoscopic position of instruments in relation to previous patient’s tomography; 3-D localization dismisses considerably complications related with this procedure.

REFERENCES

1. Gunkel AR, Freysinger W, Thumfart WF. Experience with various 3-dimensional navigation systems in head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:390-5.

2. Claes J, Koekelkoren E, Wuyts FL, Claes GM, Van den HL, Van de HP. Accuracy of computer navigation in ear, nose, throat surgery: The influence of matching strategy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:1462-6.

3. Metson R, Cosenza M, Gliklich RE, Montgomery WW. The role of image-guidance systems for head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1100-4.

4. Klimek L, Ecke U, Lübben B, Witte J, et al. A passivemarker- based optical system for computer-aided surgery in otorhinolaryngology: development and first clinical experiences. Laryngoscope 1999;109:1509-15.

5. Metson R, Gliklich RE, Cosenza M. A comparison of image guidance systems for sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1164-70.

6. Anon JB. Computer-aided endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 1998;108:949-61.

7. Gunkel AR, Freysinger W, Martín A, Völklein C, et al. Three-dimensional image-guided endonasal surgery with a microdebrider. Laryngoscope 1997;107:834-8.

8. Rudman DT, Stredney D, Sessanna D, Yagel R, et al. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery training simulator. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1643-7.

9. Reardon EJ. Navigational risks associated with sinus surgery and the clinical effects of implementing a navigational system for sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1-19.

10. Chiu A, Vaughan W. Revision endoscopic frontal sinus surgery with surgical navigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:312-18.