Gland‐preserving surgery for salivary stones and the utility of sialendoscopes

Fabie, Joshua E.; Kompelli, Anvesh; Naylor, Tate; Nguyen, Shaun A.; Lentsch, Eric J.; Gillespie, M. Boyd

doi:10.1002/hed.25560

Cited by 24 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of sialolith size in the successful removal stones via sialoendoscopy. 1,2,17 However, studies that have recognized the association between size and feasibility of sialoendoscopy have measured stones in numerous ways, including calipers, rulers, CT, and ultrasound. 6,10,18 In many cases, authors failed to report the sizing technique used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,16 Despite the inherent imprecision of a standard plastic ruler, a wider limit of agreement would limit the clinical utility of ultrasound for distinguishing between large and small stones based on cutoffs contained in the literature, which range from 3 to 5 mm. 2,6-9…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Management options for sialolithiasis include sialoendoscopy, transoral sialolithotomy (in the case of submandibular gland and distally situated parotid ductal stones), transcutaneous sialolithotomy (in the case of more proximally situated parotid ductal stones), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, intraductal lithotripsy, and sialectomy. 1,2 However, gland-preserving techniques are generally preferred. The most widely available gland-preserving techniques include sialendoscopy and transoral sialolithotomy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Larger stones (≥3 to 5 mm) are less likely to be retrieved with sialoendoscopy and may necessitate more invasive removal techniques. 2,6-9…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Larger stones (3 to 5 mm) are less likely to be retrieved with sialoendoscopy and may necessitate more invasive removal techniques. 2,[6][7][8][9] Stone size has been determined per various imaging techniques, including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, conventional sialography, magnetic resonance sialography, conventional radiography, and ultrasonography (US). The 2 most-used imaging modalities for the evaluation of sialolithiasis are CT and US.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

In Vivo Accuracy of Ultrasound for Sizing Salivary Ductal Calculi

Badger

Patel

Romero

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The present study was developed to evaluate the accuracy of in vivo ultrasound sizing for parotid and submandibular salivary gland calculi, as compared with ex vivo pathology sizing with a standard plastic ruler after extraction. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Ultrasound is frequently used to size salivary calculi and make treatment decisions, but the accuracy of measurements from this modality has not been validated. Subjects and Methods We evaluated and reviewed the charts and ultrasound examinations of 167 patients who underwent procedures for the treatment of sialolithiasis involving the parotid and submandibular glands. US examinations were performed between 2009 and 2016 in a tertiary-level hospital setting by the senior author. Measurements were collected from ultrasound evaluation before sialolithotomy, and pathology measurements were taken after removal. Ultrasound measurements in millimeters were compared with the measurements collected with a ruler. The differences were calculated and compared. Results A total of 167 calculi measurements were compared. Good concurrent validity between pathology and ultrasound measurements was suggested by a Pearson correlation of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.887-0.937). On Bland-Altman plot, correlation of the difference between US and pathology measurements showed a mean difference of 0.095 mm (95% CI, –0.19 to 0.38 mm) with a limit of agreement ranging from –3.59 mm (95% CI, –3.84 to –3.34 mm) to +3.78 mm (95% CI, +3.53 to +4.03 mm). Conclusions Ultrasound is an accurate, relatively precise, and minimally invasive imaging tool for salivary gland sialolithiasis. Preoperative size of calculi can be used to guide management and clinical decision making. Level of Evidence 2C.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Larger stones (≥3 to 5 mm) are less likely to be retrieved with sialoendoscopy and may necessitate more invasive removal techniques. 2,6-9…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In Vivo Accuracy of Ultrasound for Sizing Salivary Ductal Calculi

Badger

Patel

Romero

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Transoral removal of a hilo‐parenchymal submandibular sialolith

Kataoka

Kojima

Ishibashi

et al. 2022

Clinical Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcomes of Submandibular Stone Removal With and Without Salivary Endoscopes

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: For patients with submandibular sialolithiasis, there are many gland-preserving treatment options including sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy, however, requires expensive instrumentation with limited availability, which may not be required for routine cases. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients with submandibular sialolithiasis undergoing sialendoscopy versus those undergoing transoral incisional sialithotomy.Study Design: Longitudinal, prospective study of patient undergoing gland-preserving therapy for submandibular sialolithiasis. Methods:The study was a prospective, nonrandomized trial of 30 patients with submandibular sialolithiasis who received gland-preserving treatment by either sialendoscopy-assisted techniques (Scope group; 14 patients) or transoral sialithotomy with or without dochoplasty (No Scope group; 16 patients). Factors analyzed between the two groups included age, race, gender, size of stone, location of stone, gland(s) involved, surgical method, and modified salivary Oral Health Impact Profile (sOHIP) scores before and after therapy.Results: There were no significant differences between the Scope and No Scope groups regarding age, race, or gender. There was a significant difference in stone size between the groups, with the No Scope group having larger stones on average. Both treatments led to statistically significant symptomatic improvement in sOHIP scores. There was no statistically significant difference in salivary quality of life improvement between the Scope and No Scope groups (P = .33).Conclusions: Sialendoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the management of salivary disorders, but is not associated with improved outcomes in gland-preserving treatments for routine submandibular sialolithiasis. Transoral stone removal alone may have equivalent symptomatic outcomes in the management of select sialoliths.

show abstract

Gland‐preserving surgery for salivary stones and the utility of sialendoscopes

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

In Vivo Accuracy of Ultrasound for Sizing Salivary Ductal Calculi

In Vivo Accuracy of Ultrasound for Sizing Salivary Ductal Calculi

Transoral removal of a hilo‐parenchymal submandibular sialolith

Outcomes of Submandibular Stone Removal With and Without Salivary Endoscopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About