Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles

A meta-analysis

Andy M. Courson, James A. Stankiewicz, Devyani Lal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis To analyze trends in the surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles through meta-analysis. Study Design Meta-analysis and case series. Methods A systematic literature review on surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles was conducted. Studies were divided into historical (1975-2001) and contemporary (2002-2012) groups. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed. The historical and contemporary cohorts were compared (surgical approach, recurrence, and complications). To study evolution in surgical management, a senior surgeon's experience over 28 years was analyzed separately. Results Thirty-one studies were included for meta-analysis. The historical cohort included 425 mucoceles from 11 studies. The contemporary cohort included 542 mucoceles from 20 studies. More endoscopic techniques were used in the contemporary versus historical cohort (53.9% vs. 24.7%; P = <0.001). In the authors' series, a higher percentage was treated endoscopically (82.8% of 122 mucoceles). Recurrence (P = 0.20) and major complication (P = 0.23) rates were similar between cohorts. Minor complication rates were superior for endoscopic techniques in both cohorts (P = 0.02 historical; P = <0.001 contemporary). In the historical cohort, higher recurrence was noted in the external group (P = 0.03). Conclusions Results from endoscopic and open approaches are comparable. Although endoscopic techniques are being increasingly adopted, comparison with our series shows that more cases could potentially be treated endoscopically. Frequent use of open approaches may reflect efficacy, or perhaps lack of expertise and equipment required for endoscopic management. Most contemporary authors favor endoscopic management, limiting open approaches for specific indications (unfavorable anatomy, lateral disease, and scarring). Level of Evidence N/A.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)378-386
Number of pages9
JournalLaryngoscope
Volume124
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Mucocele
Frontal Sinus
Meta-Analysis
Recurrence
Cicatrix
Anatomy
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • endoscopic sinus surgery
  • frontal sinus
  • meta-analysis
  • Mucocele
  • open approach

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles : A meta-analysis. / Courson, Andy M.; Stankiewicz, James A.; Lal, Devyani.

In: Laryngoscope, Vol. 124, No. 2, 02.2014, p. 378-386.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Courson, Andy M. ; Stankiewicz, James A. ; Lal, Devyani. / Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles : A meta-analysis. In: Laryngoscope. 2014 ; Vol. 124, No. 2. pp. 378-386.
@article{4d30ba6996cd4f58ac2cb8560dab8372,
title = "Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objectives/Hypothesis To analyze trends in the surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles through meta-analysis. Study Design Meta-analysis and case series. Methods A systematic literature review on surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles was conducted. Studies were divided into historical (1975-2001) and contemporary (2002-2012) groups. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed. The historical and contemporary cohorts were compared (surgical approach, recurrence, and complications). To study evolution in surgical management, a senior surgeon's experience over 28 years was analyzed separately. Results Thirty-one studies were included for meta-analysis. The historical cohort included 425 mucoceles from 11 studies. The contemporary cohort included 542 mucoceles from 20 studies. More endoscopic techniques were used in the contemporary versus historical cohort (53.9{\%} vs. 24.7{\%}; P = <0.001). In the authors' series, a higher percentage was treated endoscopically (82.8{\%} of 122 mucoceles). Recurrence (P = 0.20) and major complication (P = 0.23) rates were similar between cohorts. Minor complication rates were superior for endoscopic techniques in both cohorts (P = 0.02 historical; P = <0.001 contemporary). In the historical cohort, higher recurrence was noted in the external group (P = 0.03). Conclusions Results from endoscopic and open approaches are comparable. Although endoscopic techniques are being increasingly adopted, comparison with our series shows that more cases could potentially be treated endoscopically. Frequent use of open approaches may reflect efficacy, or perhaps lack of expertise and equipment required for endoscopic management. Most contemporary authors favor endoscopic management, limiting open approaches for specific indications (unfavorable anatomy, lateral disease, and scarring). Level of Evidence N/A.",
keywords = "endoscopic sinus surgery, frontal sinus, meta-analysis, Mucocele, open approach",
author = "Courson, {Andy M.} and Stankiewicz, {James A.} and Devyani Lal",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1002/lary.24309",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "124",
pages = "378--386",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contemporary management of frontal sinus mucoceles

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Courson, Andy M.

AU - Stankiewicz, James A.

AU - Lal, Devyani

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Objectives/Hypothesis To analyze trends in the surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles through meta-analysis. Study Design Meta-analysis and case series. Methods A systematic literature review on surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles was conducted. Studies were divided into historical (1975-2001) and contemporary (2002-2012) groups. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed. The historical and contemporary cohorts were compared (surgical approach, recurrence, and complications). To study evolution in surgical management, a senior surgeon's experience over 28 years was analyzed separately. Results Thirty-one studies were included for meta-analysis. The historical cohort included 425 mucoceles from 11 studies. The contemporary cohort included 542 mucoceles from 20 studies. More endoscopic techniques were used in the contemporary versus historical cohort (53.9% vs. 24.7%; P = <0.001). In the authors' series, a higher percentage was treated endoscopically (82.8% of 122 mucoceles). Recurrence (P = 0.20) and major complication (P = 0.23) rates were similar between cohorts. Minor complication rates were superior for endoscopic techniques in both cohorts (P = 0.02 historical; P = <0.001 contemporary). In the historical cohort, higher recurrence was noted in the external group (P = 0.03). Conclusions Results from endoscopic and open approaches are comparable. Although endoscopic techniques are being increasingly adopted, comparison with our series shows that more cases could potentially be treated endoscopically. Frequent use of open approaches may reflect efficacy, or perhaps lack of expertise and equipment required for endoscopic management. Most contemporary authors favor endoscopic management, limiting open approaches for specific indications (unfavorable anatomy, lateral disease, and scarring). Level of Evidence N/A.

AB - Objectives/Hypothesis To analyze trends in the surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles through meta-analysis. Study Design Meta-analysis and case series. Methods A systematic literature review on surgical management of frontal and fronto-ethmoid mucoceles was conducted. Studies were divided into historical (1975-2001) and contemporary (2002-2012) groups. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed. The historical and contemporary cohorts were compared (surgical approach, recurrence, and complications). To study evolution in surgical management, a senior surgeon's experience over 28 years was analyzed separately. Results Thirty-one studies were included for meta-analysis. The historical cohort included 425 mucoceles from 11 studies. The contemporary cohort included 542 mucoceles from 20 studies. More endoscopic techniques were used in the contemporary versus historical cohort (53.9% vs. 24.7%; P = <0.001). In the authors' series, a higher percentage was treated endoscopically (82.8% of 122 mucoceles). Recurrence (P = 0.20) and major complication (P = 0.23) rates were similar between cohorts. Minor complication rates were superior for endoscopic techniques in both cohorts (P = 0.02 historical; P = <0.001 contemporary). In the historical cohort, higher recurrence was noted in the external group (P = 0.03). Conclusions Results from endoscopic and open approaches are comparable. Although endoscopic techniques are being increasingly adopted, comparison with our series shows that more cases could potentially be treated endoscopically. Frequent use of open approaches may reflect efficacy, or perhaps lack of expertise and equipment required for endoscopic management. Most contemporary authors favor endoscopic management, limiting open approaches for specific indications (unfavorable anatomy, lateral disease, and scarring). Level of Evidence N/A.

KW - endoscopic sinus surgery

KW - frontal sinus

KW - meta-analysis

KW - Mucocele

KW - open approach

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892909583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892909583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/lary.24309

DO - 10.1002/lary.24309

M3 - Article

VL - 124

SP - 378

EP - 386

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

IS - 2

ER -