Home > DARE Reviews > Endoscopic skull base/sinonasal...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Endoscopic skull base/sinonasal adenocarcinoma surgery: what evidence exists?

Review published: 2010.

Bibliographic details: Devaiah AK, Lee MK.  Endoscopic skull base/sinonasal adenocarcinoma surgery: what evidence exists? American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy 2010; 24(2): 156-160. [PubMed: 20338117]


BACKGROUND: This study reviewed the published outcomes literature on endoscopic or endoscopic-assisted treatment of sinonasal and skull base adenocarcinoma (SSBA). A systematic literature review was performed.

METHODS: A PubMed search of English language articles on endoscopic or endoscopic-assisted SSBA was performed. Each article was examined for patient data and outcomes for analysis.

RESULTS: Sixteen articles (150 retrospective cases) using endoscopic or endoscopic-assisted SSBA were identified. Three (19%) reported at least 15 cases of adenocarcinoma with 5-year survival ranging from 53 to 83%. In all identified studies, five (31%) reported adenocarcinoma-specific survival statistics and eight (50%) provided complete patient information. Adjuvant therapy was used in 12 studies (75%), with details outlined in 6 (38%) articles, accounting for 52 of 74 cases (70% of those patients and 35% overall). Adenocarcinoma-specific follow-up was reported in only nine studies (56%); four of these nine articles had a median/mean follow-up time of <3 years. Six articles (38%) used American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines and four articles (25%) used International Union Against Cancer guidelines. The remaining six articles (38%) did not report on the stage of treated tumors. Four articles (25%) reported length of hospital stay and eight (50%) reported complication data. Three studies comprising 61 cases (41% of overall patients) recorded disease status, tumor stage, site involvement, and complication rates for each patient.

CONCLUSION: From the existing body of data, one can not conclude that endoscopic methods are superior or inferior to open methods, but there is growing evidence that this is an efficacious technique. Future studies should have emphasis on detailed, prospective reporting.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...