xRead - Nasal Obstruction (September 2024) Full Articles

20426984, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.23262, Wiley Online Library on [02/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

80

KUANetal.

TABLE X.3 Evidence surrounding open versus endoscopic approach for adenocarcinoma.

Clinical endpoints

Study

Year LOE Study design Study groups

Conclusion

EEA and endoscopic-assisted surgery showed low rates of

1. LOS 2. Local failure 3. Complications

Meccariello et al. 259

2016 2

Systematic review

1826 patients from 39 studies EEA( n = 431) Endoscopic-assisted approach ( n = 31) Open approach ( n = 1270)

major complications, lower rates of local failure, and shorter LOS as compared to open approaches

Mortuaire et al. 260

2016 3

Retrospective cohort

43 patients Open ( n = 23) EEA( n = 20)

1. LOS 2. DFS

LOS was shorter in the EEA group with similar rates of DFS to open procedures 1. 3-year OS, DSS, and LRC were not different between groups 2. Morbidity was significantly lower with EEA for all criteria 3. EEA group exhibited a shorter LOS 1. OS and disease-free rates were not significantly different between approaches 2. Median LOS was significantly shorter in the EEA group 3. The rate of early complications was identical in both groups EEA in properly selected patients was associated with improved 3-year OS and a reduction in both complication rate and LOS

1. OS 2. DSS 3. LRC 4. LOS 5. Complications 1. OS 2. LOS 3. DFS 4. Complications

Grosjean et al. 264

2015 3

Retrospective cohort

74 patients EEA( n = 43) Transfacial resection ( n = 31)

Vergez et al. 261

2012 3

Retrospective cohort

48 patients EEA( n = 24) Open ( n = 24)

Nicolai et al. 262

1. OS 2. Complications 3. LOS

2011

3

Retrospective cohort

67 patients EEA( n = 12) EEA with transnasal craniectomy (ERTC, n = 17) Cranioendoscopic (CN, n = 9) External approaches ( n = 11) CFR( n = 18)

Abbreviations: CN, cranioendoscopic; DFS, disease-free survival; DSS, disease-specific survival; EEA, endoscopic endonasal approach; GTR, gross total resection; LOS, length of stay; LRC, locoregional control; OS, overall survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival.

TABLE X.4 Evidence surrounding open versus endoscopic approach for sinonasal sarcoma.

Clinical endpoints

Study Gore 265

Year LOE Study design Study groups

Conclusion

2018 3

Retrospective cohort

198 patients (EEA vs. open approaches)

1. OS 2. DFS

No significant difference in survival between open and EEA approaches Mean interval of recurrence was not statistically different between open approach and EEA groups

Guoet al. 266

2014 3

Retrospective cohort

23 patients Open ( n = 15) EEA( n = 8)

Mean interval to recurrence

Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; EEA, endoscopic endonasal approach; OS, overall survival.

surgery for curative intent. 14 In this study, the open approach group included endoscopic-assisted open cases (98 EEA vs. 44 open approach). Complication rates were similar between the EEA and open approaches, without

controlling for other factors. Regression analysis showed that the open approach was associated with increased odds of experiencing a complication (OR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.06–11.19). No difference was found in Charlson(–Deyo)