Paranasal Sinus Visualization Capabilities of a Novel Articulating Rigid-Flexible Endoscope: A Cadaveric Study
Allen L. Feng,Barak Ringel,Eric H. Holbrook
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791575
2024-10-04
Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base
Abstract:Introduction Rigid endoscopes have allowed surgeons to safely perform endoscopic sinus surgery. However, their rigid nature creates inherent visualization limitations. The study herein looks to assess the visualization potential of a novel articulating rigid-flexible endoscope when compared with traditional rigid and flexible nasal endoscopes. Methods A new articulating endoscope capable of bending its distal tip and extending beyond the point of angulation was compared with 0- and 30-degree 4.0-mm rigid endoscopes, and a 3.7-mm flexible nasopharyngoscope in their ability to visualize predefined anatomic landmarks within the maxillary, sphenoid, and frontal sinuses. Visible markers were placed at applicable landmarks using image guidance in a total of five cadaveric heads. The ability to visualize these intrasinus anatomic landmarks was recorded for each scope. Results When inspecting the surgically naive anatomy of all sinus ostia and predefined anatomic landmarks, the articulating endoscope had superior visualization ( p < 0.01) compared with the 0-degree, 30-degree, and flexible endoscopes throughout all sinuses (maxillary sinus: 62.5, 0, 5, and 0%, respectively; sphenoidal sinus: 92.5, 27.5, 37.5, and 40%, respectively; frontal sinus: 51.4, 5.7, 20, and 37.1%, respectively). After performing a Draf IIa, the articulating endoscope was able to visualize 100% of the predefined frontal sinus landmarks compared with 22.9, 45.7, and 65.7% for the 0-degree, 30-degree, and flexible endoscopes, respectively ( p < 0.001). Conclusion The articulating rigid-flexible endoscope is superior in reaching and visualizing anatomic landmarks within the paranasal sinuses, compared with standard endoscopes. This study was reviewed by the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institutional Review Board and found exempt. A.L.F. and E.H.H. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, resources, preparation of manuscript, and revision of manuscript. B.R. contributed to analysis, preparation of manuscript, and revision of manuscript. All authors contributed significantly to the manuscript and take responsibility for the data presented therein. Received: 15 June 2024 Accepted: 03 September 2024 Article published online: 03 October 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
surgery,clinical neurology