The lamina push test: an alternative to the globe push test for identifying the medial orbit during endoscopic sinus surgery

Background

Aside from endoscopic and image guidance confirmation, the standard method of identifying the lamina involves the surgeon or an assistant applying gentle pressure on the globe externally. This globe push test requires the surgeon to remove one instrument from the endoscopic field or an assistant to press on the globe, and the test is most useful when either the periorbita or periorbital fat is exposed. We propose an alternative, equally accurate, and more efficient technique dubbed the lamina push test.

Methods

A blunt instrument is used to gently apply lateral pressure in the expected location of the medial orbital wall. If the lamina has been adequately skeletonized, the entire lamina will be seen to move as a unit. If residual ethmoid partitions are present, no movement or only localized movement is observed.

Results

Using the lamina push test, we have been able to safely identify the lamina papyracea in all patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery, without injury to the lamina or orbital contents. The use of direct pressure significantly increases the movement of an intact lamina.

Conclusion

The lamina push test is a safe and effective technique for identification of the medial orbital wall, confirmation of removal of all lateral ethmoid partitions, and verification of lamina integrity. It enables more consistent identification of an intact lamina, allows the surgeon to keep both instruments in the endonasal surgical field, and does not require an assistant.

     

Comparing the efficacy of Silastic and gloved‐Merocel middle meatal spacers for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Spacers are inserted into the middle meatal space (MMS) following functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) to prevent lateralization of the middle turbinate, scarring, and synechiae. Our objective was to determine if the incidence of postoperative synechiae, facial pain/discomfort, pain during spacer removal, scarring, and discharge differed between nasal cavities receiving Silastic or gloved‐Merocel (GM) spacers following FESS.

Methods

A double‐blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in adults requiring bilateral FESS for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) ± nasal polyposis. Participants served as their own controls, with each subject receiving both a Silastic and GM spacer. Spacers were inserted into the MMS during FESS and left in situ for 6 days. Participants were reviewed at 6 days, 5 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively. The presence of synechiae and scarring were evaluated endoscopically. Inflammation, discharge, and pain during spacer removal were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

Forty‐eight participants (96 nasal cavities) were recruited. Preoperatively, Lund‐Mackay computed tomography (CT) scores were similar between Silastic‐treated and GM‐treated cavities (6.38 ± 2.35 vs 6.18 ± 2.17). The incidence of synechiae and scarring did not differ significantly between spacers up to 12 weeks postoperatively. Pain during spacer removal was significantly greater for Silastic than GM spacers (2.13 ± 1.34 vs 1.51 ± 1.23, p = 0.020). Facial pain prior to removal and extent of discharge did not differ significantly between spacers.

Conclusion

Following FESS, patients report less pain during removal of GM than Silastic spacers. However, the likelihood of synechiae and scarring did not differ between either of the spacers.