Treatment outcomes of sialendoscopy for submandibular gland sialolithiasis: The minor axis of the sialolith is a regulative factor for the removal of sialoliths in the hilum of the submandibular gland using sialendoscopy alone.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the general guidelines for the removal of sialoliths for submandibular gland sialolithiasis using sialendoscopy alone. METHODS: We analyzed 61 sialoliths treated using sialendoscopy in 42 patients with submandibular gland sialolithiasis. We evaluated the submandibular gland sialoliths and divided each case based upon the location: the Wharton's duct or the hilum. We measured the major and minor axes of the sialoliths using a soft tissue computed-tomography (CT) scan and evaluated the removal rate of the sialoliths using sialendoscopy alone. RESULTS: The removal rate of the sialoliths in the Wharton's duct (52.6%) was significantly higher than that in the hilum of the submandibular gland (26.1%) (P=0.042). The minor axis was significantly correlated to the treatment outcome of sialendoscopy alone for all cases (P=0.030). A significant correlation was observed for cases involving the hilum of the submandibular gland and the measurement of the minor axes of the sialoliths for the treatment outcome of sialendoscopy alone (P=0.009). The major axis showed no correlation with the treatment outcomes of sialendoscopy alone. CONCLUSION: The measurement of the minor axes of the sialoliths with a soft tissue CT scan was correlated with treatment outcome of sialendoscopy alone for all cases, particularly sialoliths in the hilum. The easurement of the major axis showed no correlation with outcomes of sialendoscopy alone.

Diagnostic and treatment effects of sialendoscopy for patients with swelling of the parotid gland when sialoliths are undetected with computed tomography.

Between August 2009 and May 2016, 74 patients underwent sialoendoscopic surgery. 32 patients had parotid gland disease and 9 patients had intermittent swelling of the parotid gland and sialoliths were not detected with CT imaging. 4 patients were diagnosed with idiopathic Stensen's duct stenosis. Sialendoscopy directly confirmed Stensen's duct stenosis in 2 patients. However, the sialendoscope was unable to be inserted in the other 2 patients, who had stenosis of the orifice of the Stensen's duct. Balloon expansion of the duct was performed in these 2 patients and a steroid drug was injected into the duct in one patient. Complete remission was archived in one patient treated with sialendoscopy. Three patients had sialolithiasis. Microsialoliths and/or white floating matter was observed and removed using sialendoscopy. All patients experienced complete remission. In cases of Sjögren syndrome and recurrent parotitis, sialendoscopic surgery was performed, but the symptoms showed no improvement. For patients with microsialoliths, sialendoscopy may be most useful for diagnosis and treatment when the sialoliths are not detected with CT imaging. At present, sialendoscopic surgery have limitation in the treatment of Stensen's duct stenosis and may similarly have limitation in the treatment of Sjögren's syndrome and recurrent parotitis.

The landmark for removal of sialoliths using sialendoscopy alone in parotid gland sialolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the general guidelines for removal of sialoliths in parotid gland sialolithiasis using sialendoscopy alone. METHODS: We analyzed 34 sialoliths treated using sialendoscopy in 26 patients with parotid gland sialolithiasis. We divided the Stensen's duct and parotid gland into for parts using computed tomography findings: (A) front of the masseter, (B) anterior and lateral to the center (anterolateral) of the masseter, (C) posterior and lateral to the center (posterolateral) of the masseter, (D) behind of the masseter. The location and size of each sialolith was assessed. RESULTS: The removal rates of sialoliths in the different locations by sialendoscopy alone were as follows: front of the masseter, 68.8%; anterolateral of the masseter, 60.0%; posterolateral of the masseter, 0%; and behind of the masseter, 33.3%. The removal rate using sialendoscopy alone was significantly higher in the sections anterior to the center of the masseter than in those posterior to the center of the masseter (66.7% [14/21] vs. 20.0% [2/10]; P=0.019). The size of the sialolith was not correlated to the removal rate by sialendoscopy alone. CONCLUSION: Sialoliths of the parotid gland located in positions anterior to the center of the masseter are significantly easier to remove by sialendoscopy alone. The center of the masseter is a general landmark for removal of sialoliths from the parotid gland using sialendoscopy alone. The size of the sialolith is not correlated with removal, except rare huge sialoliths.