[Surgical management of inverted papillomas of the nose and paranasal sinuses]. / Zum chirurgischen Behandlungskonzept bei invertierten Papillomen der Nase und Nasennebenhöhlen.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Inverted papillomas require radical resection because of their high recurrence rate and expansive growth and the risk of malignant degeneration. Since the late 1980s surgical resection has been performed predominantly as an endoscopy-/microscopy-aided procedure through an endonasal approach. The extranasal approach is only used in the case of papillomas in unusual locations or ones that have expanded to an exceptional degree. The goal of the present study was a comparative evaluation of the results of this relatively new treatment strategy and of external sinus surgery in our own patients, with particular reference to the recurrence rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1989 a total of 80 patients have undergone surgery for inverted papilloma and have been followed up at regular intervals by means of endoscopic examinations. In any patients with a recurrence the revision operation was carried out through an extranasal approach when the papilloma was in the anterior or laterocaudal maxillary sinus or in the frontal sinus; in all other cases an endonasal approach was used for the revision surgery. The mean period of follow-up was 43 months (range 15 months to 16years). RESULTS: In most patients (n=64, 80%) the endonasal surgical approach was used for the primary surgical treatment, while in 16 patients (20%) an extranasal approach was used initially. In 2 patients (2.6%) a squamous cell carcinoma was discovered adjacent to the papilloma. These two therapeutic special cases were not considered evaluable in the analysis of recurrences. Recurrences were seen in 14 patients (17.9%, n=78), in 11 patients after endonasal surgery (17.5%, n=11) and in 3 (20%, n=15) after extranasal resection. The majority of recurrences developed in patients with T3 papillomas. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rates observed after endonasal resection are comparable to those after extranasal surgery. Thus, a primary endonasal approach does not mean any prognostic disadvantage. This approach should therefore be given preference over extranasal approaches whenever possible, because there are fewer side-effects and recovery is faster than after extranasal surgery.