Cadaveric comparison of canine fossa vs transnasal maxillary sinus access

Brent Alan Feldt, Kevin Christopher McMains, Erik Kent Weitzel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations


Objective: Anatomic limitations complicate complete eradication of debris from the maxillary sinus using an exclusively transnasal (TN) endoscopic technique. Creation of a canine fossa trephination (CFT) permits a more direct approach than removal via the maxillary ostium. Methods: Microdebrider eradication of debris completely filling the maxillary sinus was performed on 5 thawed fresh-frozen cadaver heads (10 sides) using a TN or CFT approach. Postdebridement computed tomography (CT) scanning assessed remaining debris. Additional outcome measures included time of debris removal, number of different angled blades utilized, and clogging. Results: A significantly greater amount of debris was left after the TN approach compared with CFT (3.88 cm 3 vs 2.88 cm 3, p = 0.015). Median blade utilization was significantly higher with the TN approach vs CFT (4 vs 1, p < 0.002). Time for debris eradication with CFT was similar regardless of expertise (323.4 vs 272.4 seconds, p = 0.21), but the TN approach showed a statistical difference in time-to-completion (698.8 vs 438.51 seconds, p = 1.7 × 10 -5). Conclusion: Controversy surrounds the appropriate application of CFT due to disease process and approach-related morbidity. Rhinologists should have numerous well-studied options at their disposal. This model suggests that maxillary debris removal is accomplished more thoroughly with fewer microdebrider blades when a CFT approach is employed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)183-186
Number of pages4
JournalInternational Forum of Allergy and Rhinology
Issue number3
StatePublished - May 1 2011


  • Canine fossa trephination
  • Debris removal
  • Endoscopic sinus surgery
  • Microdebrider blades

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Otorhinolaryngology


Dive into the research topics of 'Cadaveric comparison of canine fossa vs transnasal maxillary sinus access'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this