Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Surgical management of inverted papilloma; a single-center analysis of 247 patients with long follow-up

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery201746:67

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0246-7

Received: 7 July 2017

Accepted: 6 December 2017

Published: 20 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Our aim was to review our management of inverted papilloma (IP), perform a recurrence analysis, and review the literature.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 247 patients treated for an IP. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach, tumor presentation (primary, residual and recurrence) and Krouse-stage.

Results

Recurrence was observed in 20.3%, 28.6% and 35.1% (p = 0.017) of the patients who underwent endoscopic, external and combined surgery, respectively. Recurrences occurred more often in residual than primary IP (36.9% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.021). Primary endoscopic surgery had a recurrence rate of 12.5%, which was comparable to the recent literature (11.2%, 161/1433).

Conclusions

The relatively high number of recurrences in this cohort is explained by the long follow-up and previous (incomplete) surgery in 61.5% of the cases. The inferior outcome of residual IP underscores the importance of having a low threshold for preoperative biopsy in unilateral and atypical sinonasal disease.

Keywords

Inverted papillomaEndoscopic surgeryRecurrenceRetrospective studyFollow-up

Background

Inverted papilloma (IP) is a benign tumor of the sinonasal cavities. It was first described by Ward more than 150 years ago as a follicular tumor involving the nasal bones [1]. It took until 1938 for Ringertz to recognize the characteristic endophytic growth pattern and introduce the term ‘inverting papilloma’ [2]. Since then many researchers have contributed to the extensive knowledge we now have on IP [3].

The incidence of IP ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 people diagnosed per 100,000 per year. The most frequently reported complaints are similar to those of sinonasal polyps: unilateral nasal obstruction and rhinorrhea. IP is most commonly diagnosed in the fifth and sixth decade of life and has a predilection for males with a ratio of 3:1 [4]. The exact etiology of IP is unclear, but there are indications that HPV infection plays a role in the progression of inverted papilloma and confers an increased risk for recurrence and malignant transformation [5, 6]. The frequency of IP in unsuspected sinonasal polyps is reported to be between 0.31 and 0.93% [7, 8].

The standard treatment has always been surgery aimed at complete removal of the tumor. Its association with malignancies in 5–15% is one of the distinct characteristics of IP that endorses surgical treatment [9]. Other important features include its aggressive growth, that causes adjacent bone to locally erode, and its tendency to recur. Over the last decades endoscopic surgery has become the gold standard for the treatment of IP with many studies showing significantly better treatment outcome in patients treated endoscopically [9].

The aim of this study was to analyze the developments in our management of IP over the last three decades, in particular with regard to the recurrence rates and outcomes of treatment. All surgical approaches were reviewed, with an emphasis on endoscopic surgery. Whether the presentation of the tumor (primary, residual or recurrent) before surgery in our clinic would affect the recurrence rate also had our interest. Finally, a literature review of IP cohort studies was performed to compare with our surgical outcomes and recurrence rates.

Methods

The Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center, a tertiary referral medical center, stated that ethical permission was not required for this retrospective study.

We included 323 IP patients, of which 247 were included in the recurrence analysis, between January 1983 and December 2012. All patients were obtained from PALGA, a Dutch nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology. All cases received surgical treatment, had a preoperative histopathological proven diagnosis of IP, and complete clinical information. Clinical data was assessed using the electronic medical records (CSC-iSOFT, Virginia, USA) and paper charts.

The IP was classified as a primary when no prior surgery was performed and diagnosis was confirmed by a simple biopsy. Patients with previous surgery were divided into two groups: residual and recurrent IP. Residual IP were defined as those who underwent functional endoscopic surgery for reasons other than IP, which was deemed as inadequate tumor surgery. Inverted papilloma diagnosis is this group was unexpected at postoperative histopathological examination. Recurrent IP were defined as those who underwent adequate tumor surgery in a different, non-academic hospital with the preoperative suspicion or diagnosis of IP. These patients were referred to us for revision surgery after diagnosis of a recurrence.

All patients underwent surgery by experienced head and neck surgeons. Surgical treatment was divided into three groups: endoscopic surgery (pure endonasal endoscopic approach), external surgery (e.g., Denker, lateral rhinotomy, osteoplastic flap) and combined approaches (endoscopic surgery combined with Caldwell-Luc). The extent of surgery and approach were chosen based on the perceived origin and extent of the IP. In the endoscopic group, we mainly performed a medial maxillectomy, including (at least the posterior two thirds of) the inferior turbinate and an ethmoidectomy. We opted for a radical ethmoidectomy, including middle turbinate and opening of the frontal recess, for tumors limited to the ethmoid and/or frontal recess. For the external approach, we mainly performed a classic Denker (medial maxillectomy via opening of the anterior wall of the maxillary sinus, complete removal of maxillary sinus mucosa, radical ethmoidectomy, and sphenoidectomy). The combined approach was applied to maxillary tumors originating lateral to the infraorbital nerve. A medial maxillectomy was performed in all cases with the exception of tumors limited to only the frontal sinus or sphenoid. Complications after surgery were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications (Table 1) [10]. All patients were followed up by endoscopy every three months for the first two years. After this period, patients were followed up biannually for up to five years. MRI and/or biopsies were performed when a recurrence was suspected.
Table 1

Summary of Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications

Grade I

Any deviation from normale post-operative care without the need for treatment or interventions

Grade II

Requiring pharmacological treatment or blood transfusion

Grade III

Requiring surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention

Grade IV

Life-treatening complication requiring IC/ICU management

Grade V

Death of a patient

A literature search was performed of EMBASE (2005, jan – 2016, dec) using the key term ‘inverted papilloma’. All IP case series with a minimal follow-up of 12 months, reporting on recurrence rates per operative approach, and published in the English language were included.

Statistical analysis

When quantitative variables were normally distributed, the results were expressed as mean values and standard deviation (SD), otherwise median and inter quartile range (IQR). Differences between two groups were analyzed using the t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative data are reported as counts and frequencies, and differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the association of Krouse staging, surgical approach and presentation of tumor and the risk of recurrence [11]. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between variables of the univariate analysis and recurrence free survival time. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) and cut off point for significance was p < 0.05.

Results

The mean age at time of diagnosis was 55.8 years (SD 13.7). The study population consisted of 245 males and 78 females (3.1, 1). Nasal obstruction was the most frequent complaint (257 patients, 79.6%). Other complaints were rhinorrhea (73, 22.6%), headache (38, 11.8%), epiphora (21, 6.5%) and feeling of pressure in the face or forehead (17, 5.3%). Thirty patients (9.3%) had no complaints. Preoperative radiological imaging was performed with CT-scan in 201 cases (62.2%) and with MRI in 15 cases (4.6%). Both CT and MRI were used in 62 patients (19.2%). Forty-five patients (13.9%) underwent surgery without preoperative radiological imaging. The left and right side of the sinonasal cavity were equally involved (50.2% vs. 48.3%). Five patients (1.5%) had bilateral involvement.

In 121 of the cases (37.5%) the inverted papilloma was primary, in 115 cases (35.6%) residual, and in 87 cases (26.9%) recurrent. The tumors were classified as Krouse T1 to T4 in respectively 38 (11.8%), 148 (45.8%), 108 (33.4%) and 29 cases (9.0%). Twenty-eight IP were classified as T4 because of an associated malignancy and one because of extrasinonasal extension. Endoscopic surgery was performed in 107 patients (33.1%), a combined approach in 22 cases (6.8%) and an external procedure in 194 patients (60.1%).

Complications

The overall percentage of perioperative complications was 14.6% (47 cases). Most complications were Clavien-Dindo grade I (24, 51.1%), such as sensibility disorders, perioperatively managed cerebrospinal fluid leakage and excessive crustae. Ten patients (21.3%), including four wound infections, had grade II complications. Most Clavien-Dindo grade III complications (10, 21.3%) were complaints of epiphora after a classical Denker procedure that required a dacrocystorhinostomy. Two patients (4.3%, grade IV) developed meningitis post-operatively and had to be admitted to the intensive care unit. One patient died post-operatively as a result of severe comorbidity (2.1%, grade V).

Malignancies

Thirty-one patients (9.6%) had an associated malignancy. The malignancy occurred synchronously in 28 cases (90.3%). They consisted of 25 squamous cell carcinomas (89.3%), two verrucous carcinomas (7.2%), and one undifferentiated carcinoma (3.6%). Three other cases squamous cell carcinomas developed metachronously (9.7%).

Four patients (12.9%) had a carcinoma in situ. Nine patients had tumor with T stage I (29.0%) three with II (9.7%), three with III (9.7%) and 12 with IV (38.7%). Three patients (9.7%) had a regional lymph node metastasis and three patients (9.7%) a distant metastasis. Most patients (80.6%) with an associated malignancy were treated with an external approach. For patients with an associated malignancy, the 5-year overall survival was 80.6% and the 5-year disease specific survival 87.1%. Eight patients with an a associated malignancy (25.8%) developed a recurrent IP after initial treatment. The 5-year recurrence free survival rate was 77.4%. During follow-up 20 patients (64.5%) remained alive with no evidence of disease. One (3.2%) was alive with disease, eight (25.8%) died of disease, and two (6.5%) died of other cause.

Recurrence analysis

We included a sub selection of 247 patients cohort in our recurrence analysis. Sixty-one patient were excluded because their follow up was <2 years. Another fifteen patients with suspected residual IP were excluded because postoperative histopathologic examination did not confirm the residual IP. The median follow-up was 66.2 months (IQR 41.1–112.9). Overall recurrences occurred in 74 patients (30.0%)(Table 2).
Table 2

Multivariate analysis of recurrence rates according to surgical approach and presentation of the tumor

 

Endoscopic approach

Combined approach

External approach

Total

 

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

Primary IP

3 / 24 (12.5)

1 / 3 (33.3)

18 / 68 (26.5)

22 / 95 (23.2)

Residual IP

8 / 32 (25.0)

2 / 6 (33.3)

21 / 46 (45.7)*

31 / 84 (36.9)†

Recurrent IP

5 / 23 (21.7)

1 / 5 (20.0)

15 / 40 (37.5)

21 / 68 (30.9)

Total

16 / 79 (20.3)

4 / 14 (28.6)

54 / 154 (35.1)‡

74 / 247 (30.0)

*p = 0.021 compared to primary IP treated with external approach. † p = 0.028 compared to total primary IP. ‡ p = 0.017 compared to total endoscopic approach

Type of surgery

Seventy-nine (32.0%) cases in our recurrence analysis were treated with pure endonasal endoscopic surgery. Recurrences occurred in sixteen endoscopic cases (20.3%). Primary IP treated endoscopically recurred in three cases (12.5%), residual IP in eight cases (25.0%) and recurrent IP in 5 cases (21.7%). Four of fourteen patients (28.6%) treated with a combined approach developed a recurrence. The majority of the cases had an external procedure (154, 62.3%). They developed recurrences in 54 cases (35.1%). This is significantly higher than the endoscopic group (p = 0.017, OR 95 CI 2.3 [1.1–4.4]) (Table 2). Primary tumors treated externally recurred in eighteen cases (26.5%). For residual (45.7%, p = 0.028, OR 95% CI 2.4 [1.1–5.6]) and recurrent (37.5%) tumors, this percentage was higher. The distribution of Krouse stage was not significantly different in these groups (Table 3).
Table 3

Distribution of Krouse stage per surgical approach

Krouse stage

Endoscopic approach

Combined approach

External approach

Total

 

no. of patients (%)

no. of patients (%)

no. of patients (%)

no. of patients (%)

T1

15 (19.0)

0 (0.0)

13 (8.4)

28 (11.3)

T2

39 (49.4)

2 (14.3)

75 (48.7)

116 (47.0)

T3

22 (27.8)

11 (78.6)

49 (31.8)

82 (33.2)

T4

3 (3.8)

1 (7.1)

17 (11.0)

21 (8.5)

Total

79 (100.0)

14 (100.0)

154 (100.0)

247 (100.0)

Presentation of tumor

The risk of recurrence was significantly higher in the residual IP group than primary IP (31 [36.9%] vs 22 [23.2%], p = 0.021 OR 95% CI 2.2 [1.1–4.3]). Recurrence occurred in 21 cases (30.9%) in the recurrent IP group.

Krouse stage

Krouse stage did not influence the overall recurrence rate significantly. Patients with Krouse stage T1-T4 IP developed recurrences in respectively 7 (22.6%), 36 (30.5%), 25 (28.9%), and 6 (42.9%) cases.

Time to recurrence

The median time to recurrence was 20.5 months (IQR 11.8–37.5). The surgical approach and the presentation of the tumor had no significant influence on the time to recurrence. Table 4 gives an overview of when the recurrences occur during follow-up. Only forty-one (55.4%) of all recurrences were diagnosed in the first two years of follow-up. More than 80% (58) of all recurrences were diagnosed within four years.
Table 4

Time to recurrence

Follow-up

Endoscopic approach (n = 79)

Combined approach (n = 14)

External approach (n = 154)

 

No. of recurrences /

total no. of recurrences (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of recurrences (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of recurrences (%)

< 1 year

5 / 16 (31.3)

0 / 4 (0.0)

16 / 54 (29.6)

< 2 year

11 / 16 (68.8)

3 / 4 (75.0)

27 / 54 (50.0)

< 3 year

13 / 16 (81.3)

4 / 4 (100.0)

38 / 54 (70.4)

< 4 year

13 / 16 (81.3)

 

44 / 54 (81.5)

< 5 year

13 / 16 (81.3)

 

45 / 54 (83.3)

6–10 year

16 / 16 (100.0)

 

51 / 54 (94.4)

> 10 year

  

54 / 54 (100.0)

Number of recurrences

Thirty-seven (50%) of all 74 cases with a recurrence after initial surgery in our hospital developed a second recurrence after revision surgery. This occurred more often in the group of patients that underwent external surgery than the endoscopic group (5/16 [31.3%] vs. 32/54 [59.3%], p = 0.049). Eighteen patients (24.3%) developed a third recurrence, while six patients (8.1%) developed even more than three recurrences during follow-up.

Literature review

A total of 64 articles IP cohort-studies between 2005 and 2016 were found, of which 23 articles with a total of 1989 patients met the inclusion criteria (Table 5) [1234]. Their mean follow-up was 54.5 months. Of the 1433 patients treated endoscopically 161 (11.2%) developed a recurrence. Recurrence rates reported varied between 0.0% and 30.0%. Seven articles reported a total of 32 (12.3%) recurrences in 260 patients treated with a combined approach. Fifty-four (18.2%) recurrences occurred in a total of 296 external procedures. Fourty-one articles did not meet the inclusion criteria.
Table 5

Review of inverted papilloma cohort studies per surgical approach with a minimal follow-up of 12 months (2005–2016)

Authors

Year published

Endoscopic

approach

Combined

approach

External

approach

Follow-up

(months)

  

No. of recurrences / %)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

Mean

Low

High

Poetker et al. [12]

2005

0 / 8

(0.0)

1 / 4

(25.0)

  

29.8

12

80

Kamel et al. [13]

2005

3 / 52

(5.8)

    

65

24

160

Peng et al. [14]

2006

    

2 / 98

(2.0)

61

24

168

Minovi et al. [15]

2006

6 / 61

(9.8)

3 / 20

(15.0)

0 / 6

(0.0)

74

12

175

Mirza et al. [16]

2007

4 / 32

(12.5)

  

4 / 16

(25.0)

60

12

240

Harvinder et al. [17]

2008

0 / 5

(0.0)

    

23

12

36

Jurado-ramos et al. [18]

2008

4 / 34

(11.8)

  

8 / 18

(44.4)

54.3

12

60

Durucu et al. [19]

2009

2 / 23

(8.7)

1 / 14

(7.1)

3 / 19

(15.8)

35

16

42

Sham et al. [20]

2009

12 / 40

(30.0)

  

6 / 16

(37.5)

84

24

216

Rutherford et al. [21]

2010

0 / 2

(0.0)

    

19

15

24

Giotakis et al. [22]

2010

5 / 39

(12.8)

  

11 / 25

(44.0)

91

36

146

Gras-Cabrerizo et al. [23]

2010

10 / 57

(17.5)

  

7 / 22

(31.8)

 

12

 

Pagella et al. [24]

2011

1 / 20

(5.0)

    

50

24

87

Dragonetti et al. [25]

2011

5 / 84

(6.0)

    

39

13

97

Lombardi et al. [26]

2011

12 / 198

(6.1)

0 / 14

(0.0)

  

53.8

24

192

Kim et al. [27]

2012

64 / 372

(17.2)

17 / 144

(11.8)

10 / 62

(16.1)

41

12

 

Pagella et al. [28]

2014

1 / 73

(1.4)

    

58

18

138

Sciaretta et al. [29]

2014

7 / 103

(6.8)

    

57.7

24

167

Gu et al. [30]

2014

1 / 7

(14.3)

  

3 / 14

(21.4)

65

36

144

Erbek [31]

2015

0 / 8

(0.0)

    

30.8

12

60

Hong [32]

2015

0 / 6

(0.0)

3 / 25

(12.0)

  

55.6

36

93

Adriaensen [33]

2016

15 / 121

(12.4)

7 / 39

(17.9)

   

12

139

Healy [34]

2016

9 / 88

(10.2)

    

97.2

36

 

Total

 

161 / 1433

(11.2)

32 / 260

(12.3)

54 / 296

(18.2)

54.5

  

Discussion

We have, to our knowledge, presented the largest ever single-center cohort of inverted papilloma patients. Our reported recurrence rates were higher for residual and recurrent IP than primary IP. We also confirmed superiority of endoscopic surgery over combined and external approaches. Finally, we’ve shown that many recurrences occur more than two years after initial treatment.

Thirty percent of all the patients in our recurrence analysis developed a recurrence (Table 2). This is relatively high compared to recent literature (Table 4). This could be explained by our heterogeneous cohort with a high number (62.3%) of external surgery. Also our rate is based on results covering a large time period with one third of the patients treated before the ‘endoscopic era’. These patients account for more than half of all recurrences. Based on our observation, most of the recurrences after an external approach, Denker in particular, occur in the frontal recess and ethmoidal roof. Tumor remnants at these areas can easily be missed or left out during such procedures due to lack of good visualization and magnification. Nowadays, we make it a point to inspect these areas using an endoscope and drill out as much bone as possible. Several literature reviews on IP recurrences have been published between 1981 and 2009 [9, 14, 3537]. Their average recurrence rates after endoscopic surgery vary between 12.5% and 19.6%. This is higher than the 11.3% in our review of more recent studies, suggesting a global decrease in recurrence rates in endoscopic IP surgery.

Our recurrence in the endoscopic group (20.3%) was also higher than the average 11.2% (161/1433) in our review of the recent literature (Table 5). However, primary tumors treated by endoscopically had a similar recurrence rate of 12.5%. Therefore, we believe that the relatively high recurrence rate is due to our high number of residual and recurrent IP and to our long follow (median > six years). After splitting the complete endoscopic group in a 2003–2007 (the first years of endoscopic IP surgery in our clinic) and a 2008–2012 cohort, we also noted a non-significant learning curve is noticed with 31.8% and 15.4% recurrences (p = 0.12) respectively.

A wide range of recurrence rates (0.0–45.0%) have been documented after revision surgery (Table 6) [20, 2629, 33, 3840]. However, it is generally accepted that it has a worse outcome than primary surgery, which is support that functional endoscopic sinus surgery should not be used as a diagnostic tool for unilateral sinonasal disease (a pre-operative biopsy should). The worse outcome of revision IP surgery has been explained due to the increased difficulty to identify the attachment site of the IP because of distorted anatomy and the absence of landmarks [33, 41, 42]. Post-operative inflammation of the remaining sinonasal mucosa could also attribute to this due to an increased difficulty to distinguish normal mucosa from tumor. This is most evident in patients with a residual IP due to the relative short time between primary and revision surgery. It could even be that incomplete surgery has an effect on the inflammatory pathway of the etiology and progression of IP, possibly explaining multi-centered recurrent IP.
Table 6

Recurrence rates according to presentation of the tumor in eight cohort studies

Authors

Year published

Primary cases

 

Revision cases

 
  

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

No. of recurrences /

total no. of patients (%)

Tufano et al. [40]

1999

1 / 17

(5,9)

4 / 16

(23,2)

Han et al. [39]

2001

0 / 14

(0,0)

3 / 17

(17,6)

Lee et al. [38]

2004

  

3 / 17

(17,6)

Sham et al. [20]

2009

9 / 36

(25,0)

9 / 20

(45,0)

Lombardi et al. [26]

2011

8 / 156

(5,1)

4 / 56

(7,1)

Kim et al. [27]

2012

70 / 456

(15,4)

21 / 122

(17,2)

Pagella et al. [28]

2014

1 / 64

(1,6)

0 / 7

(0,0)

Sciarretta et al. [29]

2014

0 / 57

(0,0)

7 / 53

(13,2)

Gu [30]

2014

  

4 / 21

(19.0)

Adriaensen et al. [33]

2015

2 / 49

(4,1)

13 / 72

(18,1)

Many articles claim that the majority of recurrences after IP-surgery occur in the first two years [20, 43]. Sham et al. published a detailed data of time to recurrences of a group of 56 patients, which supported this statement [20]. This was however not the case in our larger cohort: only 55.4% of all recurrences occurred in the first two years (Table 4). This percentage was slightly higher (68.8%) in patient treated endoscopically. A follow-up of three years after endoscopic surgery and four years for all cases was needed to diagnose >80% of the recurrences. A multi-center study has also shown a significant difference in recurrence rate between patients with a follow-up longer and shorter than three years (26.1 vs. 8.5%) [27]. Therefore, our department supports suggestions by Suh and Adriaensen to perform a long or even life-time clinical follow-up [33, 43].

Conclusion

The recurrence rate of residual tumors is significantly higher than primary tumors. Therefore clinicians should have a low threshold for suspecting IP and when uncertain first take a biopsy. Furthermore, given the mean time to recurrence and the rate of late recurrences a long follow-up is required in both the clinic and research.

Abbrevation

IP: 

Inverted papilloma

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Thijs Hooft van Huysduynen and Marjan van den Brink for their help initiating this study.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

OB, DM and JH contributed to study conception. All authors contributed to the study design. OB and FvZ performed the data collection. OB, FvZ, DM and JH or supervised data analysis. All authors interpreted the data. OB and DM wrote sections of the initial manuscript. OB designed figures and tables. All authors critically reviewed iterations of the manuscript and approved the final draft for submission.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center, a tertiary referral medical center, stated that ethical permission was not required for this retrospective study.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

References

  1. Ward N. Follicular tumour involving the nasal bones, nasal processes of the superior maxillary bone, and the septum of the nose; removal; death from pneumonia; autopsy. Lancet. 1854;2:480–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Ringertz N. Pathology of malignant tumors arasing in nasal and paranasal cavities and maxilla. Acta Otolaryngol. 1938;27:31–42.Google Scholar
  3. Eggers G, Muhling J, Hassfeld S. Inverted papilloma of paranasal sinuses. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2007;35(1):21–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Melroy CT, Senior BA. Benign sinonasal neoplasms: a focus on inverting papilloma. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2006;39(3):601–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Govindaraj S, Wang H. Does human papilloma virus play a role in sinonasal inverted papilloma? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;22(1):47–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Strojan P, Ferlito A, Lund VJ, et al. Sinonasal inverted papilloma associated with malignancy: the role of human papillomavirus infection and its implications for radiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(3):216–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. van den Boer C, Brutel G, de Vries N. Is routine histopathological examination of FESS material useful? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(3):381–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Garavello W, Gaini RM. Histopathology of routine nasal polypectomy specimens: a review of 2,147 cases. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(10):1866–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Busquets JM, Hwang PH. Endoscopic resection of sinonasal inverted papilloma: a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134(3):476–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Krouse JH. Development of a staging system for inverted papilloma. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(6):965–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Poetker DM, Toohill RJ, Loehrl TA, et al. Endoscopic management of sinonasal tumors: a preliminary report. Am J Rhinol. 2005;19(3):307–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamel R, Khaled A, Kandil T. Inverted papilloma: new classification and guidelines for endoscopic surgery. Am J Rhinol. 2005;19(4):358–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Peng P, Har-El G. Management of inverted papillomas of the nose and paranasal sinuses. Am J Otolaryngol. 2006;27(4):233–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Minovi A, Kollert M, Draf W, et al. Inverted papilloma: feasibility of endonasal surgery and long-term results of 87 cases. Rhinolog. 2006;44(3):205–10.Google Scholar
  16. Mirza S, Bradley PJ, Acharya A, et al. Sinonasal inverted papillomas: recurrence, and synchronous and metachronous malignancy. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(9):857–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvinder S, Rosalind S, Mallina S, et al. Management of sinonasal inverted papillomas: endoscopic medial maxillectomy. Med J Malaysia. 2008;63(1):58–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jurado-Ramos A, Jodas JG, Romero FR, et al. Endoscopic medial maxillectomy as a procedure of choice to treat inverted papillomas. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129(9):1018–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Durucu C, Baglam T, Karatas E, et al. Surgical treatment of inverted papilloma. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(6):1985–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sham CL, Woo JK, van Hasselt CA, et al. Treatment results of sinonasal inverted papilloma: an 18-year study. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23(2):203–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rutherford KD, Brown SM. Endoscopic resection of maxillary sinus inverted papillomas with inferior turbinate preservation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;142(5):760–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Giotakis E, Eleftheriadou A, Ferekidou E, et al. Clinical outcomes of sinonasal inverted papilloma surgery. A retrospective study of 67 cases. B-Ent. 2010;6(2):111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gras-Cabrerizo JR, Montserrat-Gili JR, Massegur-Solench H, et al. Management of sinonasal inverted papillomas and comparison of classification staging systems. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24(1):66–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pagella F, Giourgos G, Matti E, et al. Endoscopic treatment of maxillary inverted papilloma. Rhinology. 2011;49(3):369–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dragonetti A, Gera R, Sciuto A, et al. Sinonasal inverted papilloma: 84 patients treated by endoscopy and proposal for a new classification. Rhinology. 2011;49(2):207–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombardi D, Tomenzoli D, Butta L, et al. Limitations and complications of endoscopic surgery for treatment for sinonasal inverted papilloma: a reassessment after 212 cases. Head Neck. 2011;33(8):1154–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim DY, Hong SL, Lee CH, et al. Inverted papilloma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses: a Korean multicenter study. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(3):487–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pagella F, Pusateri A, Giourgos G, et al. Evolution in the treatment of sinonasal inverted papilloma: pedicle-oriented endoscopic surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2014;28(1):75–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sciarretta V, Fernandez IJ, Farneti P, et al. Endoscopic and combined external-transnasal endoscopic approach for the treatment of inverted papilloma: analysis of 110 cases. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(7):1953–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gu FM, Zhang LS. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of recurrent sinonasal inverted papilloma. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(3):1090–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Erbek SS, Koycu A, Buyuklu F. Endoscopic modified medial maxillectomy for treatment of inverted papilloma originating from the maxillary sinus. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(3):e244–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hong SL, Mun SJ, Cho KS, et al. Inverted papilloma of the maxillary sinus: surgical approach and long-term results. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015;29(6):441–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Adriaensen GF, Lim KH, Georgalas C, et al. Challenges in the Management of Inverted Papilloma: a review of 72 revision cases. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(2):322–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Healy DY Jr, Chhabra N, Metson R, et al. Surgical risk factors for recurrence of inverted papilloma. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(4):796–801.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Karkos PD, Fyrmpas G, Carrie SC, et al. Endoscopic versus open surgical interventions for inverted nasal papilloma: a systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(6):499–503.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Philpott CM, Dharamsi A, Witheford M, et al. Endoscopic management of inverted papillomas: long-term results--the St. Paul's sinus Centre experience. Rhinology. 2010;48(3):358–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Heathcote KJ, Nair SB. The impact of modern techniques on the recurrence rate of inverted papilloma treated by endonasal surgery. Rhinology. 2009;47(4):339–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee TJ, Huang SF, Lee LA, et al. Endoscopic surgery for recurrent inverted papilloma. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(1):106–12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14710004.
  39. Han JK, Smith TL, Loehrl T, et al. An evolution in the management of sinonasal inverting papilloma. Laryngoscope. 2001;111(8):1395–400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tufano RP, Thaler ER, Lanza DC, et al. Endoscopic management of sinonasal inverted papilloma. Am J Rhinol. 1999;13(6):423–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawson W, Patel ZM. The evolution of management for inverted papilloma: an analysis of 200 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140(3):330–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lund VJ, Stammberger H, Nicolai P, et al. European position paper on endoscopic management of tumours of the nose, paranasal sinuses and skull base. Rhinol Suppl. 2010;22:1–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Suh JD, Chiu AG. What are the surveillance recommendations following resection of sinonasal inverted papilloma? Laryngoscope. 2014;124(9):1981–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement