Retrospective Evaluation of the Treatment of Wharton’s Duct Stones with Transoral Approach

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 74 - 78, 28.08.2019

Ferhat Ayrancı Kadircan Kahveci

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.555748

Öz

Objective:
Sialolith is one
of the most common causes of salivary gland obstruction and often leads to
sialadenitis. It usually seen in the submandibular gland around 80-90 percent.
In this retrospective study, we aimed to retrospectively evaluate the treatment
of sialoliths in different parts of the Wharton duct with transoral approach
using minimally invasive techniques.

Methods:
After the clinical
and radiological examination of eight patients, six male and two female
patients, transoral removal of sialoliths detected in Wharton duct was decided.
All surgical interventions were performed with a
transoral approach using minimally invasive surgical techniques. Six
patients were treated under general anesthesia and two patients were treated
under local anesthesia.

Results:
8 patients aged
between 29-81 years who were transoral surgically removed Wharton duct stones.
During the 20-month follow-up period, no intraoperative or post-operative
complications such as bleeding and lingual nerve injury were observed.
According to the results of the survey, 75% of the patients were very
satisfied, 12.5% were satisfied and 12.5% were dissatisfied with the result.

Conclusion:
The transoral
approach may be considered as a more effective option for the treatment of
Wharton duct sialoliths because of the high success rate and the wider use
indication compared to non-invasive procedures such as ESWL and sialendoscopy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Wharton duct, sialolith, transoral

Kaynakça

• Berini-Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C. Morbidity associated with removal of the submandibular gland. Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery. 1992;20(5):216-219.
• Blatt IM. Chronic and recurrent inflammations about the salivary glands with special reference to children. A report of 25 cases. The Laryngoscope. 1966;76(5):917-933.
• Chossegros C, Guyot L, Richard O, Barki G, Marchal F. A technical improvement in sialendoscopy to enter the salivary ducts. The Laryngoscope. 2006;116(5):842-844.
• Combes J, Karavidas K, McGurk M. Intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones–an alternative to sialadenectomy? International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2009;38(8):813-816.
• Escudier M, Brown J, Drage N, McGurk M. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the management of salivary calculi. British Journal of Surgery. 2003;90(4):482-485.
• Eun YG, Chung DH, Kwon KH. Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones: a prospective randomized study. The Laryngoscope. 2010;120(11):2189-2192.
• Foletti JM, Graillon N, Avignon S, Guyot L, Chossegros C. Salivary calculi removal by minimally invasive techniques: a decision tree based on the diameter of the calculi and their position in the excretory duct. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2018;76(1):112-118.
• Fonseca R. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 5, Surgical Pathology, Saunders;2000.
• Gerni M, Foletti J, Collet C, Chossegros C. Evaluation of the prevalence of residual sialolith fragments after transoral approach of Wharton’s duct. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2017;45(2):167-170.
• Goodstein L, Galinat L, Curry J, Luginbuhl A, Cognetti D. Sialendoscopy for Sublingual Gland Sialolithiasis: A Novel Technique. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 2017;126(3):216-218.
• Hald J, Andreassen UK. Submandibular gland excision: short-and long-term complications. ORL. 1994;56(2):87-91.
• Hong KH, Kim YK. Intraoral removal of the submandibular gland: a new surgical approach. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. 2000;122(6):798-802.
• Im Y-G, Kook M-S, Kim B-G, Kim JH, Park JY, Song HJ. Characterization of a submandibular gland sialolith: micromorphology, crystalline structure, and chemical compositions. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2017;124(1):13-20.
• Kraaij S, Karagozoglu K, Forouzanfar T, Veerman E, Brand H. Salivary stones: symptoms, aetiology, biochemical composition and treatment. Br Dent J. 2014;217(11):23.
• Lafont J, Graillon N, Saïd MH, Tardivo D, Foletti JM, Chossegros C. Extracorporeal lithotripsy of salivary gland stone: A 55 patients study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Nov;119(5):375-378
• Liao L, Hsiao J, Hsu W, Wang C. Sublingual gland sialolithiasis: a case report. Kaohsiung J Med Sci.. 2007;23(11):590-3
• Lustmann J, Regev E, Melamed Y. Sialolithiasis: a survey on 245 patients and a review of the literature. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 1990;19(3):135-138.
• Marchal F, Dulguerov P. Sialolithiasis management: the state of the art. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2003;129(9):951-956.
• Matsunobu T, Kurioka T, Miyagawa Y, Araki K , Tamura A, Niwa K, et al. Minimally invasive surgery of sialolithiasis using sialendoscopy. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2014;41(6):528-531.
• McGurk M, Escudier M, Brown J. Modern management of salivary calculi. British Journal of Surgery. 2005;92(1):107-112.
• Nahlieli O, Nakar LH, Nazarian Y, Turner MD. Sialoendoscopy: a new approach to salivary gland obstructive pathology. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006;137(10):1394-1400.
• Ottaviani F, Capaccio P, Campi M, Ottaviani A.. Extracorporeal electromagnetic shock‐wave lithotripsy for salivary gland stones. The Laryngoscope. 1996;106(6):761-764.
• Schwartz N, Hazkani I, Goshen S. Combined approach sialendoscopy for management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. American journal of otolaryngology. 2015;36(5):632-635.
• Zenk J, Constantinidis J, Al-Kadah B, Iro H. Transoral removal of submandibular stones. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2001;127(4):432-436.