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

81

ICAR SINONASAL TUMORS

TABLE X.5 Evidence surrounding open versus endoscopic approach for sinonasal mucosal melanoma.

Clinical endpoints

Study

Year LOE Study design Study groups

Conclusion

Hur et al. 279

1. OS 2. DSS

1. EEA group exhibited higher OS than open group 2. EEA has similar DFS as open approaches

510 patients from nine studies EEA( n = 232) Open ( n = 253) Combined approach ( n = 25)

2019 2

Systematic

reviewand meta analysis

Almutuawa et al. 277

2020 3

Retrospective cohort

20 patients EEA( n = 10) Open ( n = 10)

1. OS 2. Complications

EEA had improved OS compared to open approach and lower risk of death LRC and DSS were comparable between surgical approaches 1. No difference in local recurrence or distant metastasis between surgical approaches 2. EEA had shorter LOS, less blood loss, and shorter operative time compared to open approaches

1. DSS 2. LRC

Lundberg et al. 274

2019 3

Retrospective cohort

58 patients EEA( n = 10)Open ( n = 30)

Yinet al. 268

2019 3

Retrospective cohort

54 patients EEA( n = 27) Open ( n = 27)

1. Local

recurrence

2. Distant

metastasis

3. LOS 4. Intraoperative bleeding 5. Operative time 1. Local control 2. OS 3. DFS

Caoet al. 267

OS, DFS, and local control did not differ by surgical approach

2017 3

Retrospective cohort

33 patients EEA( n = 15) Open ( n = 18)

Sayed et al. 271

2017 3

Retrospective cohort

72 patients Open maxillectomy ( n = 38)

1. RFS 2. OS

Surgical approach was not associated with OS or RFS

CFR( n = 14) EEA( n = 20) 22 patients EEA( n = 10) Open ( n = 12) 115 patients Open ( n = 35) EEA( n = 16) 25 patients EEA( n = 12)

1. DFS and RFS were not affected by surgical technique 2. LOS was shorter and postop pain was lower in EEA group

1. DFS 2. RFS 3. LOS 4. Postoperative pain

Ledderose and Leunig 276

2015 3

Retrospective cohort

Lundand Wei 275

2015 3

Retrospective cohort

OS

EEA had improved OS compared to open approach

Swegal et al. 270

1. Similar survival and morbidity outcomes between EEA versus open approach 2. No difference in complications or LOS between the two approaches 1. Open approach was associated with longer LOS 2. EEA had higher rates of unplanned readmission 3. Surgical approach did not influence OS

1. OS 2. DSS 3. LOS 4. Postoperative bleed 5. CSF leak 6. Recurrence 1. OS 2. LOS 3. Readmission

2014 3

Retrospective cohort

Open ( n = 13)

Farber et al. 278

2019 4

Retrospective database (NCDB)

686 patients EEA( n = 317) Open ( n = 369)

(Continues)