Eloy Jean Anderson, Vivero Richard J, Hoang Kimberly, Civantos Frank J, Weed Donald T, Morcos Jacques J, Casiano Roy R
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Miami-Leonard Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Laryngoscope. 2009 May;119(5):834-40. doi: 10.1002/lary.20186.
OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Craniofacial resection (CFR) represents the traditional approach for resection of anterior skull base (ASB) malignancies. However, this past decade has witnessed the emergence of transnasal endoscopic ASB resection (TER) as a feasible alternative. The aim of this study was to compare TER and CFR for ASB malignancy resection.
Retrospective analysis at a tertiary care medical center on 66 patients undergoing ASB malignant tumor resection between September 1997 and December 2006.
Eighteen patients were treated with TER, whereas 48 patients underwent CFR. The two groups showed no significant difference in complication rate (27.8% for TER and 25.0% for CFR, P > 0.05), survival (94.4% for TER and 83.3% for CFR, P > .05), and metastasis (11.1% for TER and 8.3% for CFR, P > .05). A significant difference was observed in hospital stay with an average of 3.8 days in the TER group compared to 8.1 days in the CFR group (P < .05). Local recurrence approximated significance (5.6% for TER and 29.2% for CFR, P = .051)
TER of ASB malignancy is associated with a decreased hospital stay and faster recovery when compared to open CFR. Lower local recurrence rate in the TER group may reflect a discrepancy in histology and clinical stage. We found no significant differences in survival, metastatic, or complication rates in the two groups, whereas patients in the TER group had the added benefit of a desirable cosmetic outcome. Overall, TER seems to be an excellent alternative to CFR in properly selected cases.
目的/假设:颅面切除术(CFR)是切除前颅底(ASB)恶性肿瘤的传统方法。然而,在过去十年中,经鼻内镜ASB切除术(TER)已成为一种可行的替代方法。本研究的目的是比较TER和CFR在ASB恶性肿瘤切除中的效果。
在一家三级医疗中心对1997年9月至2006年12月期间接受ASB恶性肿瘤切除的66例患者进行回顾性分析。
18例患者接受了TER治疗,而48例患者接受了CFR。两组在并发症发生率(TER为27.8%,CFR为25.0%,P>0.05)、生存率(TER为94.4%,CFR为83.3%,P>.05)和转移率(TER为11.1%,CFR为8.3%,P>.05)方面无显著差异。TER组的住院时间平均为3.8天,而CFR组为8.1天,差异有统计学意义(P<.05)。局部复发率接近显著水平(TER为5.6%,CFR为29.2%,P = 0.051)
与开放性CFR相比,ASB恶性肿瘤的TER与住院时间缩短和恢复更快相关。TER组较低的局部复发率可能反映了组织学和临床分期的差异。我们发现两组在生存率、转移率或并发症发生率方面无显著差异,而TER组患者还有良好美容效果的额外益处。总体而言,在适当选择的病例中,TER似乎是CFR的极佳替代方法。