Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 59 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of Paranasal Sinus Variations with Computed Tomography

Pages
320–327
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In our study, significant variation was observed in the sinonasal region, and it was once again emphasized that paranasal sinus CT was very valuable in determining these variations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Paranasal sinuses are one of the most common anatomical variations in humans.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 320 patients aged between 15-90 years were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In our study, significant variation was observed in the sinonasal region, and it was once again emphasized that paranasal sinus CT was very valuable in determining these variations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: Paranasal sinuses are one of the most common anatomical variations in humans. Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging modality used as the gold standard in the evaluation of patients before endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). This study aims to evaluate the anatomic variations that should be considered before and during the surgical procedure by CT examination and to determine their frequency. Methods: In this study, the images of patients who were referred to the otorhinolaryngology (ENT) outpatient clinic, considering that they had had sinus pathology and underwent paranasal sinus CT imaging were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 320 patients aged between 15-90 years were evaluated. Non-contrast images obtained by multislice CT were examined. The breakdown of anatomic variations evaluated in CT sections obtained according to these protocols is presented in Table 1. Results: Of the 300 patients, 151 were male (47.2%) and 169 were female (52.8%). The mean age was 39.8±15.8 years. The most common anatomic variation was agger nasi cell with 86.3% (n=276). The least detected anatomical variations were pneumatized inferior turbinate and bifid inferior turbinate as 0% (n=0), inferior turbinate hypoplasia as 0.3% (n=1), and bifid uncinate process variations as 0.6% (n=2). Discussion and Conclusion: Considering that a significant portion of the variations identified in this study (such as ICA protrusion and dehiscence, ethmoid roof asymmetry, Onodi cell, atelectatic UP) may lead to significant complications during surgery, it is important to know and describe the appearance of these variations on CT. In our study, significant variation was observed in the sinonasal region, and it was once again emphasized that paranasal sinus CT was very valuable in determining these variations.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNGÖR, G., OKUR, N. (2019). Evaluation of Paranasal Sinus Variations with Computed Tomography. Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal, Cilt: 59 - Sayı: 4, 320–327. https://ajindex.com/articles/192471

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Warwick R, Williams PL. Gray’s Anatomy. 35th British ed. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders; 1973
  2. Kaya M, Çankal F, Gumusok M, Apaydin N, Tekdemir I. Role of anatomic variations of paranasal sinuses on the prevalence of sinusitis: Computed tomography findings of 350 patients. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20:1481–8. [CrossRef ] 3. Önerci M. Endoskopik Sinüs Cerrahisi. 2nd ed. Ankara: Kutsan Ofset, 1999: 1–24
  3. Elwany S, Medanni A, Eid M, Aly A, El-Daly A, Ammar SR. Radiological observations on the olfactory fossa and ethmoid roof. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:1251–6. [CrossRef ] 5. Dasar U, Gokce E. Evaluation of variations in sinonasal region with computed tomography. World J Radiol 2016;8:98–108
  4. Kaplan Y, Müderris S, Kunt T. Tomographic Analysis of Sinonasal Variations and Relationship with Sinusitis. [Article in Turkish]. C.Ü. Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2004;26:29–36
  5. Zeinreich S, Albayram S, Benson ML, Oliveiro P. The ostiomeatal complex and functional endoscopic surgery. In: Som P, editors. Head and Neck Imaging. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby, 2003; 149–73
  6. Jones NS. CT of the paranasal sinuses: a review of the correlation with clinical, surgical and histopathological findings. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:11–7. [CrossRef ] 9. Kayalioglu G, Oyar O, Govsa F. Nasal cavity and paranasal sinus bony variations: a computed tomographic study. Rhinology 2000;38:108–13
  7. Dogru H, Doner F, Uygur K, Gedikli O, Cetin M. Pneumatized inferior turbinate. Am J Otolaryngol 1999;20:139–41. [CrossRef ] 11. Kharoubi S. [Pneumatization (concha bullosa) of the inferior turbinate: case report and literature review]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2010;131:321–4
  8. Yasan H, Aynali G, Akkuş O, Yarıktaş M, Doğru H, Baykal B, et al. Alt konka anatomik varyasyonlarının sıklığı. KBB Forum 2006;5:12–4
  9. Beale TJ, Madani G, Morley SJ. Imaging of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity: normal anatomy and clinically relevant anatomical variants. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2009;30:2–16
  10. Kantarci M, Karasen RM, Alper F, Onbas O, Okur A, Karaman A. Remarkable anatomic variations in paranasal sinus region and their clinical importance. Eur J Radiol 2004;50:296–302. [CrossRef] 15. Gümüs C, Yıldırım A, Erdinc P, Öztoprak B, Karaman B. Presence of Frontal Cell in Frontal Sinusitis And Its Association With Anatomic Variations. C.Ü. Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2005;27:69–73
  11. Huang BY, Lloyd KM, DelGaudio JM, Jablonowski E, Hudgins PA. Failed endoscopic sinus surgery: spectrum of CT find