Search

Purpose: Microscopic Draf 2a frontal sinusotomy relied on direct access. However, the modern-day endoscopic approach is hindered by the anterior-posterior dimensions of the frontal recess. The nasofrontal beak, angled endoscopes, and variable frontal recess anatomy make the surgery challenging. Carolyn's window frontal sinusotomy removes the limitation of anterior-posterior dimensions and is an endoscopic version of the microscopic Draf 2a. This study aims to compare the perioperative outcomes and morbidity from endoscopic direct access Draf 2a compared to angled access Draf 2a., Methods: Consecutive adult patients (> 18 years) seen at a tertiary referral clinic who underwent Draf 2a frontal sinus surgery using either endoscopic direct access (Carolyn's window) or endoscopic angled instrumentation were included. Patients who underwent Carolyn's window were compared to those with angled Draf 2a frontal sinusotomy., Results: One hundred patients (age 51.96 ± 15.85 years, 48.0% female, follow-up 60.75 ± 17.34 months) were included. 44% of patients used Carolyn's window approach. 100% [95% CI 98.2-100%] of patients achieved successful frontal sinus patency. Both groups were comparable for early morbidities (bleeding, pain, crusting, and adhesions) and late morbidities (retained frontal recess partitions). There were no other morbidities in the early and late postoperative periods., Conclusion: The endoscopic direct access Draf 2a, or Carolyn's window, removes the anteroposterior diameter limitation. The frontal sinus patency and early and late surgical morbidities of direct access Draf 2a were comparable with the angled Draf 2a frontal sinusotomy. Surgical modifications, often with drills and bone removal, can be successfully made to enhance access in endoscopic sinus surgery without concern for additional morbidity., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Delivery of topical pharmacotherapy to the paranasal sinuses remains integral to the management of chronic rhinosinusitis. The frontal sinus remains a difficult access site for irrigations, often limited by its position relative to the nostril and ethmoid sinus. In view of the previous demonstration of improved frontal sinus irrigation with Draf III vs Draf IIa, in this work we sought to evaluate topical access of Draf IIb relative to Draf IIa and Draf III modification of the frontal sinus outflow tract., Methods: Unfixed human cadaver heads were dissected using Draf IIa, Draf IIb, and Draf III frontal sinusotomies. Draf IIa, Draf IIb, and Draf III frontal sinusotomies were performed in progressive sequence on each cadaver head. Nasal irrigation fluid access to the frontal sinus was tested after each successive frontal sinus intervention. Irrigations were performed using Frankfort horizontal and vertex positioning. Blinded reviewers were then asked to evaluate nasal irrigation access based on an ordinal scale., Results: Eight cadaveric specimens (age, 78 ± 12.3 years; 62.5% female) were assessed. The greatest distribution scores were recorded by Draf III, then IIb, and then IIa (90.7% vs 81.3% vs 50.1%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the rate of lavage was greatest with Draf III (50% vs 12.5% vs 12.5%). Vertex positioning and increasing volume trended toward improved distribution but did not reach statistical significance., Conclusion: Adequate delivery of topical therapy to the paranasal sinuses by nasal irrigation remains critical in the postoperative state. Although increasing the dimensions of the frontal recess improves nasal irrigation delivery, the Draf III procedure provides the optimal delivery of pharmacotherapy in those with frontal sinus disease., (© 2019 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Objectives: The Draf III frontal sinusotomy is an established surgical procedure with an important role in the surgical management of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). In 2012, the outside-in approach to the Draf III was described as a safe and efficient procedure. Smell recovery in inflammatory CRS is challenging, and to date there is limited evidence suggesting that Draf III improves patient-reported olfactory dysfunction from CRS., Methods: A consecutive series of patients who underwent an outside-in Draf III for inflammatory CRS by a single, tertiary rhinologist were reviewed. Patients were excluded if the Draf III was performed for noninflammatory conditions. Postoperatively, patients were maintained on long-term corticosteroid irrigations, and adherence was assessed. Prospectively collected data included patient demographics, a visual analogue scale for smell, overall Sinonasal Outcome Test Score (SNOT-22), global nasal function score, and a clinician-graded clinical outcome score., Results: One hundred and four patients (41.1% female) aged 54 ± 12 years underwent an outside-in Draf III. The median follow-up time was 30.6 months (range 12.2-72.1). The majority of patients rated their smell loss as moderate or worse preoperatively; however, this was significantly improved at postoperative review (71.2% vs. 27.6%; Kendall tau-b, P < 0.01). The SNOT-22 score improved after surgery (2.32 ± 1.09 vs. 0.78 ± 0.69, P < 0.0001). Medication adherence was significantly associated with improved clinical outcome score (Kendall tau-b, P < 0.004). Aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease was found to be a significant risk factor predicting poor clinical outcome on univariate analysis (Odds Ratio = 4.69 (1.03-21.2), P = 0.04)., Conclusion: The outside-in Draf III appears to facilitate sustained, meaningful improvement in several self-reported outcomes, including smell. However, further study and comparison to less aggressive surgery will be required to confirm its true benefit., Level of Evidence: Level 4 Laryngoscope, 129:25-30, 2019., (© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

The frontal sinus can present a challenging surgical dissection for the endoscopic surgeon. Image guidance as a surgical adjunct has become widely accepted for surgeries in this area. It can help verify vital structures and manage disorienting surgical conditions, improving surgeon confidence in performing safer and more complete surgery. It is relied upon heavily for placement of limited external frontal sinusotomies for disease beyond the endoscopic reach, and for mapping the frontal sinus for osteoplastic flap bony cuts. Its use has contributed to the expanding role of endoscopic surgical approaches for paranasal sinus inflammatory and neoplastic disease., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Effective mucus lavage and delivery of topical pharmaceuticals are central to successful management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The frontal sinus remains difficult to penetrate with topical therapies. This study evaluates the benefit of Draf III frontal dissection compared to traditional Draf IIa for distribution of topical therapies., Methods: Fresh human cadaver heads were dissected sequentially with Draf IIa frontal sinusotomy and then Draf III procedures. Each cavity was irrigated with pediatric (120 mL) and adult (240 mL) irrigation bottles with 1/1000 10% fluorescein-labeled free water in 2 fixed positions (vertex and Frankfort horizontal). An endoscope at a fixed position within the frontal sinus recorded frontal sinus and frontal recess penetration. The images then underwent blinded evaluation of fluid distribution scored as 0 to 4 (nasal cavity only, frontal recess, medial one-half, lateral one-half, and lavage). Ordinal distribution score was analyzed with Kendall's tau-b., Results: Eight specimens (age 76 ± 11.2 years; 50% female) were assessed. Draf III was superior to Draf IIa in ability to achieve frontal sinus distribution of irrigation (90.6% vs 50.1%, p < 0.001). Vertex head position improved distribution (90.6% vs 50.1%, p < 0.001), was synergistic with Draf III (100% with 87.5% lavage, p < 0.001), but was unable to overcome Draf IIa (81.2% with 25% lavage, p < 0.001). Irrigation volume trended toward improved distribution with larger volume irrigations., Conclusion: Successful treatment of sinonasal disease may require postoperative delivery of topical therapies. Draf III frontal sinusotomy achieves superior topical access, and access to the frontal sinus with Draf IIa appears limited, despite large volumes and positioning., (© 2016 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Background: The Draf 3 frontal sinusotomy, or modified Lothrop procedure has been used to treat recalcitrant rhinosinusitis, frontal sinus mucocoeles or to provide access for cerebrospinal fluid leaks, frontoethmoid fractures, frontal sinus tumors and skull base tumors., Objective: To describe authors approach to the "Outside-In Frontal Drill-Out"., Methods: Descriptive., Results: The "Outside-In" frontal drill-out is an approach that emphasizes the early identification of the first olfactory neuron, maximization of bone removal, and preservation of the posterior table mucosa., Conclusion: The advantages of this approach are it provides unobstructed view and identifies anatomic limits early, bone removal is fast and efficient; it is safe, and it is a robust technique based upon fixed anatomic landmarks.

Objectives/hypothesis: Ostiomeatal complex (OMC) occlusion may play a role in the pathogenesis of some chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) subgroups, but its role in diffuse mucosal inflammation is strongly debated. The association between radiological OMC occlusion and its draining sinuses in patients with eosinophilic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) compared to non-ECRS is investigated., Study Design: Case-control study., Methods: Patients with CRS who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery were investigated. Preoperative computed tomography scans were evaluated. Structured histopathology reporting was performed. The study group was patients with high tissue eosinophil >10/high power fields (HPF), and the control group was patients with low tissue eosinophil ≤ 10/HPF. The radiological relationship of OMC occlusion to the draining sinuses was analyzed in each group., Results: Seventy patients with a mean age of 49.7 ± 14.1 years were analyzed. Forty-one (58.6%) patients had high tissue eosinophil >10/HPF. All patients with ECRS had maxillary disease, and there were 36.2% without OMC occlusion. There was no association of OMC occlusion to either the anterior ethmoid (ECRS: odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-14.14; P = .55; non-ECRS: OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.34-7.33; P = .56) or frontal sinuses (ECRS: OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.12-3.82; P = .65; non-ECRS: OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.45-5.54; P = .47). For patients with non-ECRS, maxillary sinus diseases was present in 96.2% of those with OMC occlusion and 50% of those without (OR, 25.0; 95% CI, 2.77-226.08; P < .001)., Conclusions: OMC occlusion is not associated with draining sinuses for patients with ECRS. Simple surgical interventions directed at the OMC are unlikely to be of benefit to this CRS subgroup., Level of Evidence: 3b., (Copyright © 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objectives/hypothesis: Drilling in modified endoscopic Lothrop procedure (MELP) is traditionally described as commencing from the frontal recess (FR). This is challenging when the FR is involved by tumor, inflammatory disease, or scarring. The outside-in MELP, where the limits of the sinusotomy are first defined and the FR is addressed last, is described., Study Design: Case-control study., Methods: Patients undergoing MELP, using the standard or outside-in approach, for inflammatory disease or endoscopic skull base surgery were assessed. Data were collected on demographics, disease characteristics, and FR involvement. Operative time was calculated from intraoperative video recording. Time points recorded were times to frontal sinus and recess connected for outside-in MELP and completion of Lothrop cavity for both groups. Perioperative complications (infection, skin breach or contusion, surgical emphysema, orbital bleeding, cerebrospinal fluid leak, and intracranial complications) were recorded., Results: Thirty patients (67% female) with a mean age ± standard deviation of 56.0 ± 10.8 years underwent MELP (24 outside-in, six standard). Time for Lothrop completion was shorter for outside-in MELP (30.60 ± 14.10 minutes vs. 69.66 ± 64.52 minutes, P = .002). Among outside-in MELP, mean time to frontal sinus floor discovery was 8.41 ± 6.29 minutes, to recess connected 26.50 ± 12.45 minutes, and were similar regardless of pathology. The time for Lothrop cavity completion was shorter for tumor cases (24.63 ± 6.49 minutes) than for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps (35.87 ± 20.18 minutes) and chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (34.62 ± 11.56 minutes) (P = .05). One patient had skin edema. No other complications were recorded., Conclusions: The outside-in MELP is technically feasible and safe. Its advantage is a wide approach to the frontal sinus with development of the Lothrop cavity en route resulting in short predictable operative times. Defining the limits of the dissection early provides a robust and efficient approach., (Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.)

Background: The modified endoscopic Lothrop (MELP) or Draf III procedure can provide extended endoscopic access to the frontal sinus. The ability to access the entire frontal sinus entirely endoscopically is often debated and there is little published data to predict access based on tumor location., Methods: MELP was performed in 10 cadaver heads. Access was defined as the ability to contact the bone under vision with the head of a 70-degree diamond burr. Access was assessed in 3 areas: the orbital roof and the anterior and posterior walls of the frontal sinus. Endpoints were defined in millimeters from medial orbit and lateral quartile zones., Results: Complete lateral access was excellent anterior and posterior in 95% of sinuses (mean 15.5 ± 7.8 mm and 15.4 ± 7.7 mm, respectively). Access to the orbital roof was limited (10.3 ± 4.6 mm; p = 0.01 comparing anterior and posterior). For sinuses pneumatized beyond the midorbital point, only 10% of lateral orbital roofs were contacted. Orbital roof access correlated with the anteroposterior (AP) distance between the olfactory fossa and outer periosteum of the frontal beak (r = 0.6, p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Lateral endoscopic access to the walls of the frontal sinus is excellent except for the sinus floor. Access to the orbital roof is reliable in the medial quarter only and minimal lateral to the midorbital point. The ability to predict the areas accessible by the endoscopic approach and those areas that might require ancillary approaches is important for both surgical planning and patient expectations., (Copyright © 2011 American Rhinologic Society-American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy, LLC.)

Objective: To describe the endoscopic management of frontal sinus mucoeceles with anterior table erosion. Previous hardware exposure and subsequent contour defects were also assessed., Design: Retrospective case series., Methods: Thirty-seven patients (mean 48 yrs, range 20-78) with frontal sinus mucoeceles and anterior table erosion, endoscopically managed in a tertiary care setting, were reviewed. The demographic data, defect size, surgical technique, presence of exposed hardware, outcomes, and clinical follow-up were collected for outcome assessment, Results: The average follow-up was 32.6 months (range, 6-73). The overall long-term success rate with our initial endoscopic approach was 92% (34/37). The average size of anterior table defects was 181 mm2 (4-1155). Twelve patients had prior osteoplastic flaps (OPF) with obliteration and 57% (21/37) had previous endoscopic sinus surgeries. Ten patients with prior OPF operations had hardware exposed within the sinus from previous surgeries. Two patients eventually required an OPF with fat obliteration. Most defects were either unnoticeable or cosmetically acceptable to the patients. Only one patient required a contouring plate six months after the procedure. Ninety percent of patients were successfully managed with exposed hardware left in situ., Conclusions: Endoscopic marsupialization of frontal sinus mucoeceles with anterior table erosion has a high success rate with a good cosmetic outcome, often without routine reconstruction. Revision cases and those with exposed hardware did not prevent successful management.

Background: Endoscopic repair of skull base (SB) defects is successful in over 90% of cases. Certain factors may contribute to failure of SB repair techniques or need for secondary repair. Methods: Five-year retrospective review of endoscopic SB defect repairs performed by a single surgeon. Results: Eighty-nine patients undergoing 110 procedures to repair 97 SB defects were evaluated. Etiology of defects included surgical/iatrogenic (64%), spontaneous (17%), traumatic (12%), congenital (6%), and idiopathic (1%). Defects occurred in the sella (41%), sphenoid sinus (18%), ethmoid roof (17%), olfactory cleft (16%), frontal sinus/recess (6%), and middle cranial fossa (2%). Sixty-three patients (71%) underwent primary SB defect repair and 26 patients underwent secondary repair (29%). In revision cases, mean number of prior repair attempts was 1.5 (range, 1-4). Factors potentially contributing to need for secondary SB defect repair included inability to localize SB defect (p =0 .008), development of new SB defect, prior sinus or SB surgery (p < 0.001), prior craniotomy (p < 0.001), prior radiation therapy (p = 0.002), and intracranial infection (p = 0.023). SB defects were successfully closed in 83 patients overall (93%), with success achieved in 97% of primary patients and 85% of secondary patients. Of failures, 3 patients required craniotomy for defect closure, 2 patients underwent permanent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion, and 1 patient has persistent CSF rhinorrhea. Conclusion: Although endoscopic repair of SB defect remains largely successful, certain factors should alert the surgeon to the potential for failure of repair or need for secondary SB defect repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (eCRS) is an inflammatory endotype of CRS. Contemporary treatment includes creation of a "neo‐sinus" cavity and postoperative corticosteroid irrigations. Not all patients gain control with local therapy. This study aims to determine, in patients with polyp recurrence, the most common sinuses involved. Methods: A prospective case‐series was conducted on consecutive adult (≥18 years) post‐FESS eCRS patients followed for a minimum of 12 months. All patients had a neo‐sinus cavity created surgically and used corticosteroid irrigations daily for 3‐6 months, then tapered to disease control. Sinus cavities were assessed by endoscopy on last follow‐up. Polyp recurrence was defined as a score of 5 or 6 in the MLMES in ≥3 sinus cavities. Patient‐reported outcomes based on SNOT22 and NSS, frequency of corticosteroid irrigations, and courses of systemic antibiotics and corticosteroid were collected. The pattern of sinus involvement was analyzed. Result: A total of 342 sinus cavities were assessed (mean ± standard deviation, 54.9 ± 13.4 years, 43.2% female). Polyp recurrence occurred in 4.3% (6.4% of patients, n = 7 unilateral) of sinus cavities. Frontal and ethmoid sinus cavities were most affected in those with polyp recurrence, compared to the maxilla and sphenoid (100% vs 100% vs 53% vs 53%, p < 0.01). Although those patients with polyp recurrence utilized more systemic corticosteroids courses per year (0.4 ± 0.4 vs 0.1 ± 0.3, p < 0.01), the use of corticosteroid irrigations was similar (% >4/week; 66.7% vs 48.9%, p = 0.13). Prior surgery was more common in patients with polyp recurrence (86.7% vs 53.5%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: The frontal and ethmoid sinuses were most affected in those patients with polyp recurrence. Whether the disease is more active in this location or topical therapy has limited access requires further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]