Valentini Pascal, Stacchi Claudio
Institute of Health, Department of Implant Surgery, Tattone Hospital, University of Corsica Pasquale Paoli, Corte, France.
Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025 Feb;27(1):e13397. doi: 10.1111/cid.13397. Epub 2024 Oct 8.
Maxillary sinus floor elevation is usually performed in two different ways: the lateral approach involves the creation of a bony window on the maxillary sinus lateral wall, providing direct access to the sinus cavity for membrane elevation and subsequent graft placement, and the transcrestal approach is considered less invasive. The aim of this article is to describe, based on the literature, how to anticipate, avoid, and manage the intraoperative complications that can occur with both approaches. For both approaches, the most common complication is the sinus membrane perforation. For the lateral approach, an average frequency ranging from 15.7% to 23.1% is reported, but because of the better visibility, their management will be easier compared to the transcrestal approach. Mean perforation rate reported for the transcrestal approach is lower (3.1%-6.4%), but it should be noted that a significant number of perforations cannot be detected and managed given the blind nature of this technique. Anatomical parameters such as sinus width and buccal wall thickness may be a risk factor for one approach and not the other. As it is impossible to assess the resistance of the Schneiderian membrane, the transcrestal approach is more likely to lead to infectious complications in the event of perforation. Others, such as the risk of vascular damage, are encountered only with the lateral approach, which can be prevented easily by dissecting the alveolo-antral artery. For both approaches, prevention is essential and consists in analyzing the anatomy, mastering the surgical technique, and collaborating with the ENT to manage the essentially infectious consequences of intraoperative complications.
外侧入路是在上颌窦外侧壁创建一个骨窗,直接进入窦腔以提升黏膜并随后植入植骨材料,经牙槽嵴顶入路则被认为侵入性较小。本文旨在基于文献描述如何预测、避免和处理这两种入路可能出现的术中并发症。对于这两种入路,最常见的并发症是窦黏膜穿孔。外侧入路的报告平均发生率为15.7%至23.1%,但由于视野更好,与经牙槽嵴顶入路相比,处理起来会更容易。经牙槽嵴顶入路报告的平均穿孔率较低(3.1% - 6.4%),但应注意,鉴于该技术的盲目性,大量穿孔无法被检测和处理。诸如窦宽度和颊侧骨壁厚度等解剖参数可能是一种入路而非另一种入路的风险因素。由于无法评估施耐德膜的阻力,经牙槽嵴顶入路在穿孔时更易导致感染性并发症。其他并发症,如血管损伤风险,仅在外侧入路中出现,通过解剖牙槽 - 窦动脉可轻松预防。对于这两种入路,预防至关重要,包括分析解剖结构、掌握手术技术以及与耳鼻喉科医生协作以处理术中并发症的主要感染后果。