Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4458_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
47 Мб
Скачать
29 Complications ofRhinosinusitis
https://t.me/medicina_free
361
a
Fig. 29.8 MRI of a large mucocele of the left sphenoid sinus, resulting in abducens nerve palsy of the left eye. (a) Axial. (b) Coronal plane
b
The chronic inammatory response observed in CRS can worsen existing airway pathology or lead to adult-onset asthma [15].
Minor complications associated with CRS tend to occur with local tissue alterations that may lead to osteitis and bone erosion [16].
Medical therapies widely used at treating CRSsNP, including antibiotics and systemic cor­ticosteroids, can also cause various local or sys­tematic complications.
Diagnosis
Physical Examination
Clinical assessment remains the key to diagnos­ing orbital complications of rhinosinusitis. Visual acuity, ocular motility and colour dis­crimination should be specically assessed.
Each modality can be affected, but not necessar­ily in a set order. For example, loss of red and green colour perception due to increased intra­orbital pressure may be noted before worsening of visual acuity. Tonometry can prove helpful, but whilst being sensitive, it is not specic. All cranial nerves should be assessed, especially cranial nerves II, III, IV, V1, V2 and VI that can be involved in orbital and intracranial complications.
Intracranial complications tend to present in a more “nonspecic” manner with symptoms such as headache or fever—if any at all. More specic signs and symptoms such as neck stiffness, alter­ation in mental state or vomiting should lead to an earlier diagnosis.
362
https://t.me/medicina_free
V. Chatzinakis and C. Georgalas
Radiology
To our knowledge, there have been no large ran­domized, controlled trials, comparing computing topographic scanning to ultrasonography or mag­netic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rhino­sinusitis complications. As far as orbital complications are concerned, it is the author’s opinion that contrast CT should be the study of choice. It is relatively inexpensive, widely avail­able, quick and detailed and can assess bone ero­sion and any extension of inammation. Enhancement of orbital fat usually indicates an intraorbital complication of variable severity. An orbital or subperiosteal abscess can be readily iden­tied from its characteristic appearance of a rela­tively low-attenuation central necrotic component and a capsular ring enhancement with contrast.
The appropriate use of computed tomography in children with sinus disease has been addressed by a clinical consensus statement. This recommends careful consideration be given to the risk–benet ratio. A CT sinus scan is however recommended in children who fail to respond to treatment and those with complications of infection [17].
On the other hand, MRI can prove superior to CT in soft tissue differentiation, parenchymal extension or marrow-space involvement without exposing the patient to irradiation. MRI is often performed concurrently with MRA when cavern­ous sinus thrombosis is suspected. However, MRI is more expensive, is less available, requires sedation/anesthesia in younger children, is sus­ceptible to image degradation by movement and is more time-consuming than a CT scan.
Laboratory Tests
Although not specic, an elevated white blood cell count with a prevalence of neutrophils is very common in complicated acute rhinosinusitis. Leukopenia is also possible, but this is typically related to worse outcome. C-reactive protein (CRP) is an index of inammation and is usually elevated, but due to its low specicity, it is more useful to monitor the early recovery period rather than to establish the diagnosis.
In intracranial complications like bacterial meningitis, blood cultures and CSF analysis and culture are often helpful in conrming a more pre­cise diagnosis and yielding an infective pathogenic microorganism. Cerebrospinal uid, acquired via a lumbar puncture, will normally reveal >5 white blood cells/μL, >50mg/dL of protein and <40mg/ dL of glucose in cases of bacterial infection [18].
If an intracranial abscess is suspected, radio­logical imaging of the head is mandatory before a lumbar puncture is performed, since brain hernia­tion is a signicant risk. Elevation of intracranial pressure to levels higher than 200mm H2O is also a potential risk of intracranial infection and must be excluded prior to lumbar puncture.
Treatment
Principles ofManagement
The principles of treating complicated rhinosinus­itis, especially acute infection as described above, follow a common pattern: As a general rule, hos­pital admission is necessary for diagnosis and treatment. Evaluation from the ENT specialist, an ophthalmologist and/or a neurosurgeon should be considered according to the likely complication. Appropriate intravenous antibiotic treatment should be started as soon as possible once an orbital or intracranial complication is suspected. A second-line antibiotic (usually third-generation cephalosporin) that crosses the blood–brain bar­rier or a quinolone as an alternative is often insti­gated as rst-line antibiotics, such as ampicillin/ sulbactam or amoxicillin/clavulanate, may have already been administered prior to the complica­tion and hospital admission.
Sometimes an antibiotic that is effective against a multiresistant Staphylococcus aureus, such as vancomycin, should be prescribed, espe­cially when treating intracranial complications.
Intranasal use of topical vasoconstrictors/decon­gestants is common practice, but their effectiveness has not been denitively proven. As a general rule, if the patient responds poorly to intravenous antibi­otics after 24–48h, then surgical exploration and drainage should occur without further delay. Whilst
29 Complications ofRhinosinusitis
https://t.me/medicina_free
363
planning the procedure, communication between all subspecialties involved is vital.
Surgical Management
Orbital Complications
Preseptal and orbital cellulitis, and small medially located subperiosteal abscesses (<2cm diameter), usually respond well to systemic intravenous anti­biotics. Larger periorbital and orbital abscesses require surgical intervention and drainage.
Endoscopic transnasal drainage of abscesses is a well-established technique that avoids an external facial scar, shortens hospital stay and has a good outcome. The external approach via a Lynch–Howarth incision is an alternative tech­nique, especially if endoscopic expertise is not easily available. The transcaruncular approach offers the possibility of external drainage without leaving an external scar.
The endoscopic drainage approach commences with a medial meatal antrostomy and anterior eth­moidectomy. The lamina papyracea is identied and partially removed to expose the periorbita. The periorbita may or may not need to be incised with a sickle knife (subperiosteal or intraconal). The subperiosteal abscess is exposed and drained. Pus samples should be obtained and sent for culture.
External or combined approaches are reserved for laterally located abscesses or when the endo­scopic approach fails to relieve intraorbital pressure.
Frontal sinus osteitis with a subperiosteal abscess (or Pott’s puffy tumor) will require a Draf II/Draf III procedure or rarely an osteoplas­tic approach to the frontal sinus, if reconstruction of the anterior wall is mandated. Alternatively, a minimally invasive external procedure (such as a trephination of the frontal sinus) may be used, with or without cannulation and topical installa­tion of antibiotics in the frontal sinus.
plication and treat “en route” the affected sinus whenever possible. In the presence of purulent sinusitis, adequate drainage of the involved sinus should be considered as sine qua non. Whether the drainage of the affected sinus (usually the frontal) will be via an endoscopic approach or an external trephination/exploration is debatable: Whilst some studies have shown potentially bet­ter outcomes by using the endoscopic approach [19], the counter-argument involves the risk of a postoperative frontal ostium stenosis as a result of operating endoscopically in a heavily inamed, oedematous frontal recess. Craniotomy, a trans­frontal approach, image-guided aspiration or simple burr-hole drainage may be used to drain epidural abscesses, brain abscesses or subdural empyemas, with the aim of reducing intracranial pressure and lowering the risk of recurrence from residual disease. Meningitis is the sole intracra­nial complication that has not been associated with better outcomes after endoscopic sinus drainage. The surgical treatment of cavernous sinus thrombosis includes drainage of the pri­mary source of infection in the sinuses: The cav-
Intracranial Complications
Intracranial complications are typically associ­ated with frontal sinusitis, ethmoiditis or sphe­noiditis, and surgical intervention will generally be necessary in almost all cases. The goal of such an intervention is to address the endocranial com-
Fig. 29.9 Epidural abscess as a result of osteomyelitis of the frontal sinus (Pott’s puffy tumor) showing at Fig.29.4 (asterisk)
364
25
20
15
10
SNOT score
SNOT score
https://t.me/medicina_free
V. Chatzinakis and C. Georgalas
ernous sinus itself is not exposed as this has been shown to cause higher morbidity.
Clinical Examples
Case 1: A Case of Pott’s Puffy Tumor with Epidural Abscess
A 14-year-old-boy was referred with progressive acute frontal sinusitis. He developed severe head­ache and nausea over 24h that failed to respond to iv analgesics. He had tachycardia (108bpm) and pyrexia (38.6°C), and the white blood cell count was elevated. Vital signs met the criteria of sepsis.
Examination showed a soft mass on his fore­head, consistent with osteomyelitis of the frontal sinus (Pott’s puffy tumor). The diagnosis was conrmed by a CT scan, which also revealed an underlying epidural abscess (Fig.29.9).
The frontal sinus was drained by endoscopic ethmoidectomy and drainage by a Draf II proce­dure that preserved the bony wall of the frontal drainage pathway. The epidural abscess was drained by a neurosurgical team after completion of the endoscopic procedure.
The patient recovered fully and showed no sign of recurrence over a 3-year follow-up time.
A 4-year-old boy presented with acute onset of proptosis of the left eye 10days after an upper respiratory tract infection. Orbital palpation showed mild tenderness but no restriction of eye movement. The swelling had commenced 3days ago and had not improved with oral amoxicillin/ clavulanate.
Endoscopy showed severe unilateral mucosal oedema but no evidence of mucopurulent discharge.
Intravenous antibiotics were initiated by the paediatricians, but he failed to no improve after
Case 2: A Case of Subperiosteal Abscess of the Left Orbit
Fig. 29.11 Case 3 SNOT-22 score, over 1year follow-up
5
0
30/8/18 19/11/18 11/2/19 25/11/19 date 4
20
Fig. 29.10 MRI of a left subperiosteal abscess. Note the collection (arrows) affecting the medial rectus muscle as well as the eyelid oedema (asterisk)
6
4
2
29 Complications ofRhinosinusitis
https://t.me/medicina_free
Fig. 29.12 Case 3: Endoscopic view of the patent frontal sinus drainage pathway (Draf 3 neo-ostium), 3years after surgery
365
shows a patent Draf III neo-ostium (Figs.29.7c and 29.12).
Areas ofControversy
1. Endoscopic versus open drainage for the fron-
tal sinus in cases of acute infection with endo­cranial complications.
2. Is it ever safe to treat medically a well-dened
orbital abscess?
3. Do antibiotics reduce the incidence of endo-
cranial or orbital complications of ARS?
4. Do we always need to deal with the sinuses in
cases of endocranial complications?
24 h. A scan was planned, but due to parental concern about irradiation, he underwent an MRI scan of the orbits that revealed a subperiosteal abscess (Fig.29.10).
Ipsilateral endoscopic medial antrostomy and anterior ethmoidectomy were performed, result­ing in almost complete resolution of symptoms within the next 48h.
Case 3: A Case of Chronic Frontal Fungal Sinusitis with Coexisting Mucocele
Α 17-year-old girl presented with a 12-month his­tory of nasal obstruction, sleep disordered breath­ing and mild swelling of the right eye for 6months (Fig. 29.7b). She was initially diagnosed with allergy. Her SNOT-22 score was 20 (Fig.29.11).
She had diplopia in downward gaze and nasal endoscopy showed a polypoid mass blocking the anterior ethmoids.
An MRI scan was suggestive of a mucocele of the far lateral region of the right frontal sinus.
She underwent endoscopic surgery and drain­age via a Draf III procedure. Nasal polyps sur­rounded by thick mucus were removed. She had a small defect of the right orbital roof that explained her diplopia.
Histopathology and cultures conrmed the presence of “allergic” eosinophilic mucin consistent with a diagnosis of allergic fungal sinusitis. Three years later, she remains asymptomatic, and endoscopic examination
Key Learning Points
• Whilst the clinical presentation may vary between patients, infection can progress rap­idly to become severe and dangerous.
• Early orbital periorbital complications of sinus­itis usually respond to intravenous antibiotics.
366
https://t.me/medicina_free
V. Chatzinakis and C. Georgalas
• Early treatment with empiric intravenous anti­biotics should be instigated to all patients with suspected complications.
• Antibiotic choice is determined by the most likely pathogens. These pathogens are typically Streptococcus pneumoniae,
Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• The threshold for requesting a CT scan of the sinuses, orbit and head should be low.
• Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) remains the gold standard for treating most infective com­plications of ARS.
• Endoscopic surgical drainage should be per­formed early and not be considered as the last resort.
• Drainage of primary frontal/ethmoid sinus infection via ESS and a Draf II drainage pro­cedure is likely to improve the clinical out­comes in patient with orbital and intracranial complications [19].
• Dexamethasone reduces local oedema and inammation. The role of dexamethasone has been revised over the past few decades. It is now considered to improve the long-term out­come of sinogenic meningitis [20].
• Orbital abscess and cavernous sinus thrombo­sis are rare but serious surgical emergencies that require prompt intervention with high­dose broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics and surgical exploration.
References
1. Hansen FS, Hoffmans R, Georgalas C, Fokkens WJ. Complications of acute rhinosinusitis in The Netherlands. Fam Pract. 2012;29(2):147–53. https://
doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmr062. Epub 2011 Sep 5.
PMID: 21896505.
2. Siedek V, Kremer A, Betz CS, Tschiesner U, Berghaus A, Leunig A.Management of orbital complications due to rhinosinusitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(12):1881–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00405- 010- 1266- 3. Epub 2010 May 13. PMID:
20464411.
3. Piatt JH Jr. Intracranial suppuration complicating sinusitis among children: an epidemiological and clinical study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(6):567–74.
https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.3.PEDS10504. PMID:
21631191.
4. Blanco CH, Stein JB, Barinsky GL, Fang CH, Grube JG, Turbin RE, Eloy JA. Management of compli­cated pediatric rhinosinusitis in the COVID-19 era. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102746. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102746. Epub 2020 Sep
23. PMID: 33198053; PMCID: PMC7511219.
5. Wang DY, Wardani RS, Singh K, Thanaviratananich S, Vicente G, Xu G, Zia MR, Gulati A, Fang SY, Shi L, Chan YH, Price D, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Fokkens WJ.A survey on the management of acute rhinosinusitis among Asian physicians. Rhinology. 2011;49(3):264–
71. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhino10.169. PMID:
21866280.
6. Mortimore S, Wormald PJ. The Groote Schuur hos­pital classication of the orbital complications of sinusitis. J Laryngol Otol. 1997;111(8):719–23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022215100138459. PMID:
9327008.
7. Chandler JR, Langenbrunner DJ, Stevens ER. The pathogenesis of orbital complications in acute sinus­itis. Laryngoscope. 1970;80(9):1414–28. https://doi.
org/10.1288/00005537- 197009000- 00007. PMID:
5470225.
8. Velasco e Cruz AA, Demarco RC, Valera FC, dos Santos AC, Anselmo-Lima WT, Marquezini RM. Orbital complications of acute rhinosinus­itis: a new classication. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;73(5):684–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1808-
8694(15)30130- 0. PMID: 18094811.
9. Osborn MK, Steinberg JP. Subdural empyema and other suppurative complications of paranasal sinus­itis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(1):62–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1473- 3099(06)70688- 0. PMID:
17182345.
10. Younis RT, Anand VK, Davidson B. The role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with sinusitis with complica­tions. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(2):224–9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00005537- 200202000- 00005. PMID:
11889374.
11. Todman MS, Enzer YR. Medical management ver­sus surgical intervention of pediatric orbital cel­lulitis: the importance of subperiosteal abscess volume as a new criterion. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27(4):255–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
IOP.0b013e3182082b17. PMID: 21415801.
12. Gavriel H, Yeheskeli E, Aviram E, Yehoshua L, Eviatar E.Dimension of subperiosteal orbital abscess as an indication for surgical management in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;145(5):823–7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599811416559. Epub
2011 Jul 21. PMID: 21778515.
29 Complications ofRhinosinusitis
https://t.me/medicina_free
367
13. Ghegan MD, Lee FS, Schlosser RJ.Incidence of skull base and orbital erosion in allergic fungal rhinosinus­itis (AFRS) and non-AFRS.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134(4):592–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
otohns.2005.11.025. PMID: 16564378.
14. McFadden EA, Woodson BT, Massaro BM, Toohill RJ. Orbital complications of sinusitis in the aspi­rin triad syndrome. Laryngoscope. 1996;106(9 Pt 1):1103–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-
199609000- 00012. PMID: 8822714.
15. Jarvis D, Newson R, Lotvall J, Hastan D, Tomassen P, Keil T, Gjomarkaj M, Forsberg B, Gunnbjornsdottir M, Minov J, Brozek G, Dahlen SE, Toskala E, Kowalski ML, Olze H, Howarth P, Krämer U, Baelum J, Loureiro C, Kasper L, Bousquet PJ, Bousquet J, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Burney P. Asthma in adults and its association with chronic rhinosinusitis: the GA2LEN survey in Europe. Allergy. 2012;67(1):91–
8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398- 9995.2011.02709.x. Epub 2011 Nov 4. PMID: 22050239.
16. Scangas GA, Gudis DA, Kennedy DW. The natu­ral history and clinical characteristics of paranasal sinus mucoceles: a clinical review. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3(9):712–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/
alr.21178. Epub 2013 May 20. PMID: 23696282.
17. Setzen G, Ferguson BJ, Han JK, Rhee JS, Cornelius RS, Froum SJ, Gillman GS, Houser SM, Krakovitz PR, Monfared A, Palmer JN, Rosbe KW, Setzen M, Patel MM.Clinical consensus statement: appropriate use of computed tomography for paranasal sinus dis­ease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(5):808–
16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812463848. Epub 2012 Oct 10. PMID: 23054429.
18. Durand ML, Calderwood SB, Weber DJ, Miller SI, Southwick FS, Caviness VS Jr, Swartz MN. Acute bacterial meningitis in adults. A review of 493 epi­sodes. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(1):21–8. https://
doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199301073280104. PMID:
8416268.
19. Van der Poel NA, Hansen FS, Georgalas C, Fokkens WJ. Minimally invasive treatment of patients with Pott’s puffy tumour with or without endocranial extension—a case series of six patients: our experi­ence. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(5):596–601. https://
doi.org/10.1111/coa.12538. Epub 2016 Feb 8. PMID:
26382235.
20. Buchholz G, Koedel U, Pster HW, Kastenbauer S, Klein M. Dramatic reduction of mortality in pneu­mococcal meningitis. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):312.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054- 016- 1498- 8. PMID:
27716447; PMCID: PMC5045860.
Further Reading
Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I,
Baroody F, Cohen N, Cervin A, Douglas R, Gevaert P, Georgalas C, Goossens H, Harvey R, Hellings P, Hopkins C, Jones N, Joos G, Kalogjera L, Kern B, Kowalski M, Price D, Riechelmann H, Schlosser R, Senior B, Thomas M, Toskala E, Voegels R, Wang de Y, Wormald PJ.EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology. 2012;50(1):1–12.
https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhino50E2. PMID: 22469599.
Georgalas C, Fokkens W. Rhinology and skull base
surgery. From the lab to the operating room—an evidence- based approach. Thieme. 2019.
Orlandi RR, Kingdom TT, Hwang PH, Smith TL, Alt
JA, Baroody FM, Batra PS, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Bhattacharyya N, Chandra RK, Chiu A, Citardi MJ, Cohen NA, DelGaudio J, Desrosiers M, Dhong HJ, Douglas R, Ferguson B, Fokkens WJ, Georgalas C, Goldberg A, Gosepath J, Hamilos DL, Han JK, Harvey R, Hellings P, Hopkins C, Jankowski R, Javer AR, Kern R, Kountakis S, Kowalski ML, Lane A, Lanza DC, Lebowitz R, Lee HM, Lin SY, Lund V, Luong A, Mann W, Marple BF, McMains KC, Metson R, Naclerio R, Nayak JV, Otori N, Palmer JN, Parikh SR, Passali D, Peters A, Piccirillo J, Poetker DM, Psaltis AJ, Ramadan HH, Ramakrishnan VR, Riechelmann H, Roh HJ, Rudmik L, Sacks R, Schlosser RJ, Senior BA, Sindwani R, Stankiewicz JA, Stewart M, Tan BK, Toskala E, Voegels R, Wang de Y, Weitzel EK, Wise S, Woodworth BA, Wormald PJ, Wright ED, Zhou B, Kennedy DW. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(Suppl 1):S22–S209. https://
doi.org/10.1002/alr.21695. PMID: 26889651.
Section V
https://t.me/medicina_free
Benign and Malignant Sinonasal Tumours
Sinonasal Papilloma
https://t.me/medicina_free
UsamahHadi andAndrewC.Swift
30
Introduction
Sinonasal papilloma is an unusual benign tumor that can have extraordinary recurrence rates and the potential for transformation into squamous cell carcinoma. As a unilateral nasal mass, it presents as a challenging condition. The unilat­eral sinonasal symptoms, isolated nasal tumor, polypoid growth, or radiological sinus opacity are common entities that can mimic a host of clinical and other pathologic diseases. This uni­laterality increases the burden for the surgeon to establish the correct diagnosis and treat the con­dition appropriately. The challenges posed dur­ing early tumor development result from the lesion forming in closed anatomical spaces with­out inducing noticeable symptoms. It is only in later stages of the disease when the tumor enlarges that symptom becomes apparent. The mainstay of management is surgical resection of the tumor. However, surgery for inverted papil-
Supplementary Information The online version con­tains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-28690-2_30.
loma has evolved from basic removal of nasal polypoid masses to extensive but precise endo­scopic techniques.
The benign nature of the tumor led to surgical resection being performed by most ENT sur­geons, but individual experience was often lim­ited. Once the concept of the “oncological approach” of extensive resection via lateral rhi­notomy and medial maxillectomy became fash­ionable, the operation was often done by surgeons with a head and neck interest.
With the development of endoscopic tech­niques and a better understanding of the bio­logical behavior, the management has progressed. Most tumors can now be treated very effectively with endoscopic endonasal techniques with much improvement in the postoperative morbidity. There is still a place for external surgery, but this is now used with expert planning, often being combined with endoscopic surgery.
U. Hadi Department of Otolaryngology HNS, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
Rhinology Division, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: uh00@aub.edu.lb
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. C. Swift et al. (eds.), Contemporary Rhinology: Science and Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28690-2_30
A. C. Swift (*) Liverpool Head and Neck Centre, Liverpool University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
371
372
https://t.me/medicina_free
U. Hadi and A. C. Swift
Terminology: WHO Denition
The terminology of sinonasal papilloma is con­fusing and imprecise [1]. Older historical terms such as Schneiderian papilloma and Ringertz tumor are so well established that they continue to be used. The Schneiderian membrane is a his­torical term for the nasal mucosa, named in honor of a seventeenth-century German anatomist, Professor Konrad Viktor Schneider of Wittenberg (1614–1680), who published his work on the nasal mucous membrane and catarrh, refuting the
a
theory that nasal secretions originated from the pituitary gland.
A sinonasal papilloma is dened as a benign epithelial tumor composed of well-differentiated columnar or ciliated respiratory epithelium with variable squamous differentiation [2].
The nomenclature of papilloma lacks preci­sion, and various terms are used. The World Health Organization classied sinonasal papil­loma into three histological subtypes: these include inverted, exophytic, and oncocytic sub­types (Fig.30.1a–c).
b
c
Fig. 30.1 Histological subtypes of sinonasal papilloma: (a) Inverted papilloma. (b) Exophytic papilloma. (c) Oncocytic papilloma