The Location of Maxillary Sinus Ostium and Its Clinical Application

Prasanna, Lokadolalu Chandracharya; Hosapatna, Mamatha

doi:10.1007/s12070-010-0047-z

Cited by 58 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But Rice and schaeffer [24] termed all extra openings other than a single primary maxillary ostium as accessory maxillary ostium irrespective of their location. Prasanna [25] in his study on forty cadavers head & neck specimens cut sagittally through the nose reported accessory…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical Variations of Accessory Maxillary Sinus Ostium: an Endoscopic Study

Mahajan¹,

Mahajan²,

Gupta³

et al. 2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical Variations of Accessory Maxillary Sinus Ostium: an Endoscopic Study

Mahajan¹,

Mahajan²,

Gupta³

et al. 2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Another study used the punctum subnasale as their pivot landmark, the distance from this point on the upper lip to maxillary orifice in the area of hiatus semilunaris was recorded as 48.25 ± 0.75 mm at an angle of 30° (Djambazov, ). Similar studies have sought to pin‐point the maxillary sinus ostia within the hiatus semilunaris (Van Alyea, ; Stammberger, ; Prasanna and Mamatha, ). Prasanna and Mamatha () found that in a majority (52.5%) of specimens, the ostium was located within the posterior 1/3 of the hiatus semiluaris.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Anatomic description of the middle meatus and classification of the hiatus semilunaris into five types based upon morphological characteristics

Dahlstrom

Olinger

2013

Clinical Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomical variation of the lateral nasal wall, including the pathway from the frontal, ethmoidal, and maxillary sinuses may affect the communication between the paranasal sinuses and the nasal cavity. The middle meatus and hiatus semilunaris are areas where variations can occur which predispose patients to recurring sinusitis. Endoscopy allows for visualization of the entire nasal cavity, for both diagnostic and therapeutic uses. The purpose of this study was to provide an accurate characterization of the middle meatus and hiatus semilunaris for the purposes of endoscopic procedures. Ninety seven cadaveric lateral nasal walls were observed. The middle meatus was measured at three distinct points. Cranial length was also recorded. A 3D digitizer was used to record spatial relationships for the openings of the paranasal sinuses and the morphology of the hiatus semilunaris. The average widths for the middle meatus were 1.69-mm anteriorly, 2.83 mm at the transition angle, and 4.74-mm posteriorly. The posterior width was significantly larger than either of the two other measurements. The length of the hiatus semilunaris was found to be shorter on both left-sides and in females. The hiatus semilunaris was categorized into five types according to the varying morphologies. Given that the middle meatus was significantly wider posteriorly, our findings support the recommendation that entering the middle meatus posteriorly may allow an endoscopic surgeon easier access to the structures of the lateral nasal wall. Knowing the discrepancy of hiatus semilunaris lengths between right and left sides and males versus females may guide advancement of endoscopic instruments into the nasal cavity. Describing the five distinct types of the hiatus semilunaris allows the distinction of normal variation in this anatomic space versus pathologic condition.

show abstract

“…For reasons discussed above, the superior position of the MSO is arguably a factor contributing to high incidences of MS pathology among humans (Souza et al, 2016). While numerous studies have investigated the frequency of MS pathology (Ikeda, 1996;Perloff et al, 2000;Sánchez Fernández et al, 2000;Slavin et al, 2005;Roberts, 2007) and the position of the MSO relative to specific nasal landmarks for surgical purposes (Myerson, 1932;Van Alyea, 1936;Prasanna and Mamatha, 2010;Souza et al, 2016), few studies have systematically investigated how variations in MS size and/or shape relate to MSO position (an exception being Souza et al, 2016, see below). While human MSs are often described as pyramidal in shape, with the medial wall acting as the base of the pyramid and its apex extending laterally toward the zygoma (Skillern, 1923;Amedee, 1993;Singh and Tabaee, 2016;Souza et al, 2016), the size and shape of the MS are extremely variable at both the population (Shea, 1977;Fernandes, 2004b;Holton et al, 2013;Butaric, 2015;Butaric and Maddux, 2016;Maddux and Butaric, 2017) and individual levels (Anagnostopoulou et al, 1991;Amedee, 1993;Miller and Amedee, 1997;Uchida et al, 1998;Kim et al, 2002;Fernandes, 2004a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical Variation in Maxillary Sinus Ostium Positioning: Implications for Nasal‐Sinus Disease

Butaric

Wadlé

Gascon

et al. 2018

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among humans, superiorly located maxillary sinus ostia (MSO) result in drainage complications and maxillary sinus (MS) disease. While previous studies investigate maxillary sinusitis frequency or MSO‐position relative to specific nasal landmarks, few explore MSO‐position to overall MS dimensions. This study investigates whether MSO‐position relates to MS size/shape and if sex‐based differences exist. Twenty‐nine landmarks, placed on magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of 109 individuals (males = 57; females = 52), captured maximum dimensions of the cranium, MS, nasal cavity, and MSO‐position relative to the MS floor (MSO_MSF) and nasal floor (MSO_NCF). Landmark coordinates were used to calculate centroid sizes and 13 linear distances; distances were size standardized by cranial centroid‐size. Principal components analysis (PCA) on 3D‐coordinates indicates that variation in MSO‐position relates to superior–inferior MS positioning within the face (PC1 22% variance) and MS height (PC2 12% variance). Regression analyses indicate that MS size (r2 = 0.502; P < 0.001) and height (r2 = 0.589; P < 0.0001) strongly contribute to MSO_MSF: larger, taller MSs exhibit greater MSO_MSFs. Sex‐based differences were not evident in PC shape‐analyses nor among size‐standardized dimensions. However, Mann–Whitney U‐tests indicate females have absolutely smaller MSs (P = 0.001) and MSO_MSF distances (P = 0.001). Further, regressions indicate females exhibit lower MSO_MSFs for a similar MS height. Overall, MSOs superiorly placed relative to the MS floor correlate with larger, taller MSs and/or sinuses positioned inferiorly within the face. While craniofacial surgeons/clinicians should be aware of potential sex‐based differences in MS size and MSO position, this study does not suggest that higher incidences of female‐reported sinusitis relate to sex‐based differences in MS anatomy. Anat Rec, 302:917–930, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

The Location of Maxillary Sinus Ostium and Its Clinical Application

Cited by 58 publications

References 3 publications

Anatomical Variations of Accessory Maxillary Sinus Ostium: an Endoscopic Study

Anatomical Variations of Accessory Maxillary Sinus Ostium: an Endoscopic Study

Anatomic description of the middle meatus and classification of the hiatus semilunaris into five types based upon morphological characteristics

Anatomical Variation in Maxillary Sinus Ostium Positioning: Implications for Nasal‐Sinus Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About