Printer Friendly

Paranasal sinus mucoceles with intraorbital extension/Orbital invazyon gosteren paranazal sinus mukoselleri.


Paranasal sinus mucoceles occur with the collection of mucus in a cystic lesion lined with normal respiratory mucosa, as a result of the obliteration of the sinus ostium caused by chronic inflammation, trauma, iatrogenic injury, and tumors. (1,2) The term mucocele was first used by Rollet in 1896, and its histological examination was reported by Onodi in 1901. (3,4) An infected mucocele is called a mucopyocele. Mucoceles are slow growing lesions and may cause the thinning of the surrounding

bone and may change its form. Orbital, intracranial, and facial soft tissue extensions can also occur due to expansion towards neighboring tissues. The chance of treatment without complication increases with early diagnosis. Mucoceles with intraorbital and intracranial extension may cause permanent complications. Although there are many reported cases of paranasal sinus mucoceles with intraorbital extension in the literature, studies on this subject are limited in the ophthalmology literature in our country. (5-10) The objective of this study was to review our experience in the management of paranasal sinus mucoceles with intraorbital extension.

Materials and Methods

Patients who were diagnosed with and had treatment for paranasal sinus mucocele with orbital extension between 2005-2012 were included in this retrospective study. Intraorbital extension was defined as an invasion of the orbit by the mucocele through an orbital wall defect. The study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki by obtaining written consent from all patients, with the approval of the local ethics review board. The ophthalmology department was the first place of application for all the patients. All patients' charts and laboratory studies were reviewed retrospectively, and clinical features, radiologic data, ophthalmologic manifestation, management, surgical methods, recurrence, complications, and outcomes were recorded and analyzed.


The mean age of the 11 patients was 47.6 [+ or -] 15.6 years (ranged from 25 to 69 years); the female/male ratio was 1.2:1. The mean period of follow-up was 18.5 [+ or -] 4.8 months. The origin of the orbital mucocele was frontal sinus in 6 patients (54.5%), ethmoidal sinus in 3 patients (27.3%), and maxillary sinus in 2 patients (18.2%). One patient (Case no 1) had bilateral mucoceles who applied to ophthalmology department with the symptoms of enlargement of the left eye and diplopia in the last 6 months. In the ophthalmologic examination of the left eye, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.4, and hypotropia, limitation of upgaze, and macular pucker were detected. The computerized tomography (CT) scans revealed pansinusitis and bilateral frontal sinus mucoceles--one originated from the right frontal sinus and extended to the cranium, while the other was located at the left frontal sinus with intraorbital extension. After the neurosurgery and otorhinolaryngology consultation, this case was treated with osteoplastic flap technique by external approach. During the postoperative follow-up, recurrence was detected which was treated with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and no additional complications were observed (Figure 1). Locations were bilateral only in this patient, whereas the rest of the patients had only one mucocele (Table 1). The initial symptoms and signs of all patients are given in Table 2. All patients underwent consultation in the Otorhinolaryngology Department, and for 8 (72.7%) patients whose mucoceles were approachable with endoscopy, the first treatment choice was ESS and marsupialization of the sinus to the nasal cavity, whereas for 3 (27.3%) patients whose mucoceles were unapproachable with endoscopy, the treatment was combined with osteoplastic flap technique by external approach. After surgical interventions, all patients' signs and symptoms improved, while only one patient required additional surgery.


Paranasal sinus mucoceles occur with the collection of mucus in a cyst, which is surrounded by the epithelium as a result of the obliteration of the sinus ostium caused by inflammation, trauma, iatrogenic injury, or tumors. They are most likely to be seen in the frontal and ethmoidal sinuses and less frequently--in the maxillary and sphenoidal sinuses. (10-15) The growth of the mucocele increases the pressure on the surrounding bone wall and may cause thinning. If it is not diagnosed and treated at this stage, it may cause deconstruction of the surrounding bone tissue which leads to intraorbital, intracranial, and facial soft tissue extensions. Frontal sinus mucoceles often occur as soft, painless mass in the superonasal and superior orbital region. It can lead to the displacement of the globe downward and forward causing diplopia. Optic neuropathy, diplopia, and visual loss may be seen due to the pressure on the globe and extraocular structure caused by orbital invasion. It may cause meningitis, brain abscess, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistula by intracranial extension.

Although paranasal sinus mucoceles may be encountered at any age, it has been previously reported that they frequently occurred in the fourth to fifth decades. In this study, similar to previous reports, the mean age of the eleven patients was estimated as 47.6 [+ or -] 15.6 years. (12)

In their case series, Lee et al. (12) encountered complaints or signs on the eyes of 81 (98.8%) of 82 patients who had mucoceles with intracranial or intraorbital extensions. These complaints were ptosis in 27 (32.9%) patients, periorbital swelling in 24 (29.3%), blurred vision in 20 (24.4%), exophthalmos in 5 (6.1%), and eye pain in 3 (3.6%) patients. In their study that included 15 (62.5%) patients with orbital involvement and 24 mucoceles, Khong et al. (13) detected displacement of the globe in 11 patients (73.3%) and non-axial proptosis in 4 (26.6%) patients, diplopia in 6 (40%), eyelid edema in 7 (46.6%), epiphora in 2 (13.3%), vision loss in 1 (6.6%), ptosis in 2 (13.3%), and periorbital palpable mass lesion in 2 (13.3%) patients. Kim et al. (14) detected ophthalmic symptoms in the eyes of 96 out of 97 patients in their 17-year retrospective study, and periorbital swelling and pain were the most encountered symptoms in 35 patients (36.4%). Optic neuropathy was detected in 18 patients (18.8%) who had decreased visual acuity and relative afferent pupillary defect. Ten of these patients showed improvement after the mucoceles were treated surgically. The authors found that the presence of infection was the only significant factor for visual outcome. In their study of 15 cases with orbital mucocele, Wang et al. (15) found proptosis in 10 patients (66.7%), diplopia in 5 (33.3%), limitations in ocular movements in 4 (26.7%), periorbital pain in 4 (26.7%), periorbital palpable mass lesion in 4 (26.7%), ptosis in 3 (20%), visual loss in 3 (20%), headache in 2 (13.3%), and relative afferent pupillary defect in 1 patient (6.66%). Orbital mucoceles arising from the frontal and etmoidal sinuses frequently present with proptosis or palpable mass in the periorbital area, while the maxillary and sphenoidal sinus mucoceles are less common and related to optic neuropathy and decreased visual acuity. (15) Similar to the literature, in this study, the most common origin of the mucoceles were frontal sinus (54.5%) and ethmoidal sinus (27.3%), which due to the mass effect in the orbital cavity, resulted mostly in proptosis (63.6%), diplopia (54.5%), and displacement of the globe (36.4%). We detected decreased visual acuity in three patients, two of which occurred due to macular pucker and one was related to optic neuropathy. In our series, there was only one maxillary sinus mucocele but no sphenoidal sinus mucocele, and due to this disruption of the patients, we detected optic neuropathy only in one patient. All of these symptoms improved after treatment in all patients.

A CT scan is an excellent diagnostic tool for identifying the size, location, and extension of the mucocele. In CT scans, mucoceles appear as homogeneous isodense lesions that do not enhance with contrast unless they are infected. They are typically space occupying lesions from the paranasal sinus with surrounding bony erosion. (15) Magnetic resonance imaging provides the differentiation of mucocele from paranasal sinus carcinoma, soft tissue, and dural inflammation visible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in T1 and T2 weighted examination. (16-18) In our department, we preferred CT scanning as the first choice imaging tool, whereas in selected cases such as those who were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, intracranial extension or suspected carcinoma, CT scanning was combined with MRI.

Traditionally, treatment for paranasal sinus mucocele involved complete removal of the sinus mucosal lining and obliteration of the sinus. Although an external approach by Lynch-Howarth incision or Caldwell-Luc technique was accepted in the past, with the improvements in endoscopic sinus surgery of today, endoscopic surgery of sinus mucocele is widely preferred with its low rate of morbidity and recurrence. (5-7,19,20) Different from the endoscopic surgical approach which is common in the literature, Wang et al. (15) practiced transcanalicular surgery in 8 patients, Lynch technique in 3 patients, transfornix approach in 2 patients, and functional endoscopic sinus surgery in 1 patient in their study of 15 cases with orbital mucocele. No recurrence was encountered in any of the patients. Lee et al. (12) treated 77 patients with marsupialization and modified Lothrop procedure combined with intranasal drainage, 4 patients with an external approach, and 1 patient with external combined with endonasal. In our study, we performed functional ESS and marsupialization to the nasal cavity for mucoceles that were approachable with endoscopy, but for cases located in the lateral side of the frontal sinus, thus being unapproachable with endoscopy, the osteoplastic flap technique with external approach was combined with the endoscopic approach. We tried to use the endoscopic technique as much as possible since it is less harmful to the nasal structures and physiology, leaves no scar aesthetically, and provides an early return to daily life. (11-15,19,20)

Late diagnosis and treatment of paranasal sinus mucocele with orbital extension can cause serious complications. In general, ophthalmologic symptoms were the most common clinical presentations of these patients. Therefore, paranasal sinus mucoceles should be considered for the diagnosis of orbital masses and treated by both ophthalmologists and otorhinolaryngologists. This is particularly important for early diagnosis, and rapid surgical intervention by a collective work of ophthalmologists and otorhinolaryngologists is necessary to prevent patients from having permanent complications. Functional ESS, which has proved to be a successful treatment in the published literature, is recommended as the primary means of managing paranasal sinus mucoceles, and the osteoplastic flap technique with external approach gives successful results in patients with endoscopically unapproachable mucoceles.



This study was presented in part at the 42th Annual Meeting of the Turkish Ophthalmology Society, held in Antalya on November 11-15, 2008.

With thanks to Ayse Unal Ersonmez and Barbara Reid for editing the article in terms of English.


(1.) Serrano E, Klossek MJ, Percodani J, Yardeni E, Dufour X. Surgical management of paranasal sinus mucoceles:A long term study of 60 cases. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 2004;131:133-40.

(2.) Kelly A, Malloy OD. Fronto-ethmoid sinus mucocele. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 2006;77:450-8.

(3.) Rinna C, Cassoni A, Ungari C, Tedaldi M, Marianetti TM. Fronto-orbital mucoceles: our experience. J Craniofac Surg 2004;15:885-9.

(4.) Onerci M. Paranazal sinus mukoselleri. Onerci M. Endoskopik sinus cerrahisi. 2. Baski. Ankara. Kutsan ofset. 1999:110-12.

(5.) Sakallioglu O, Duzer S, Attunsoy HB. Frontoetmoido-Orbital Mukosel: Olgu Sunumu Firat Tip Dergisi 2011;16:149-52.

(6.) Yildirim AE, Denizhan D, Cetinalp NE, Nacer OA, Belen AD, Orbital Kompresyon Yapan Dev Frontoetmoidal Mukoselin Endoskopik Endonazal Tedavisi. Turk Norosirurji Dergisi 2013;23:51-4.

(7.) Sahin C, Durmaz A, Yildizoglu U, Uysal Y, Tosun F Paranazal sinus mukosellerinin goz komplikasyonlari Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2010;20:232-6.

(8.) Ural A, Kutluhan A, Bercin S, Bozdemir K. Sfenoid sinus mukoseline ikincil abdusens sinir paralizisi: olgu sunumu. KBB Forum 2006:5;94-6.

(9.) Cakli H, Gurbuz MK, Kecik C, Ure BS. Orbital yayilimli maksiller sinus mukoseli: Olgu sunumu. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg, 2007;17:290-3.

(10.) Buyuklu F, Cakmak O. Orbital tutulumu olan etmoid sinus mukoseli: Iki olgu sunumu. Turk Otolarengoloji Arsivi, 2009; 47: 174-8.

(11.) Har-El G. Endoscopic management of 108 sinus mucoceles. Laryngoscope 2001;111:2131-4.

(12.) Lee TJ, Li SP, Fu CH et al. Extensive paranasal sinus mucoceles: a 15-year review of 82 cases. Am J Otolaryngol. 2009;30:234-8.

(13.) Khong JJ, Malhotra R, Wormald PJ, Selva D. Endoscopic sinus surgery for paranasal sinus mucocoele with orbital involvement. Eye (Lond). 2004;18:877-81.

(14.) Kim YS, Kim K, Lee JG, Yoon JH, Kim CH. Paranasal sinus mucoceles with ophthalmologic manifestations: a 17-year review of 96 cases. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:272-5.

(15.) Wang TJ, Liao SL, Jou JR, Lin LL. Clinical manifestations and management of orbital mucoceles: the role of ophthalmologists. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005;49:239-45.

(16.) Lanzieri CF, Shah M, Krauss D, Lavertu P. Use of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating mucoceles from neoplasms in the paranasal sinuses. Radiology 1991;178:425-8.

(17.) Lloyd G, Lund VJ, Savy L, Howard D. Optimum imaging for mucoceles. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:233-6.

(18.) Malloy KA. Fronto-ethmoid sinus mucocele: a case report. Optometry. 2006;77:450-8.

(19.) Conboy PJ, Jones NS. The place of endoscopic sinus surgery in the treatment of paranasal sinus mucoceles. Clin Otolaryngol 2003;28:207-10.

(20.) Aycicek A, Sargin R, Yilmaz MD, Temiz B, Kenar F, Yildiz H. Frontal Sinus Mukoseli: Olgu Sunumu. Kocatepe Tip Dergisi 2008;9:17-20.

Halil Huseyin Cagatay *, Metin Ekinci *, Yaran Koban *, Can Pamukcu **, Yekta Sendul ***, Mehmet Ersin Oba *, Seyho Cem Yucetas ****, Selma Seker *****, Sitki Mert Ulusay ******

* Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Kars, Turkey

** Sehit Kamil State Hospital, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Gaziantep, Turkey

*** Sisli Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Clinic of Ophthalmology, Istanbul, Turkey

**** Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery, Kars, Turkey

***** Terme State Hospital, Clinic of Otolaryngology, Samsun, Turkey

****** Kars State Hospital, Clinic of Radiology, Kars, Turkey

Address for Correspondence/Yazisma Adresi: Halil Huseyin Cagatay MD, Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Kars, Turkey Phone: +90 474 225 11 91 E-mail: Received/Gelis Tarihi: 12.11.2013 Accepted/Kabul Tarihi: 21.03.2014

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics
of the patients

Case no   Age (Year)   Sex   Mucocele origin

1         29           M     Bilateral frontal sinus
2         44           F     Right ethmoidal sinus
3         58           F     Right frontal sinus
4         35           F     Left frontal sinus
5         69           M     Left maxillary sinus
6         25           M     Left frontal sinus
7         44           F     Right ethmoidal sinus
8         58           F     Right frontal sinus
9         35           F     Left frontal sinus
10        69           M     Left maxillary sinus
11        58           M     Right ethmoidal sinus

Case no   Follow-up      Complication
          time (month)

1         14             Recurrence
2         18             -
3         17             -
4         13             -
5         24             -
6         28             -
7         15             -
8         16             -
9         15             -
10        23             -
11        21             -

* Abbreviations: M: Male F: Female

Table 2. Presenting ocular symptoms and signs of the patients

Signs or symptoms                   n   %

Proptosis                           7   63.6
Limitation in ocular movement       6   54.5
Diplopia                            6   54.5
Hypotropia                          4   36.4
Periorbital palpable mass lesion    3   27.3
Visual loss                         3   36.4
Ocular pain                         2   18.2
Macular pucker                      2   18.2
Ptosis                              2   18.2
Optic neuropathy                    1   9.1
Exotropia                           1   9.1
COPYRIGHT 2014 Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original Article/Ozgun Arastirma
Author:Cagatay, Halil Huseyin; Ekinci, Metin; Koban, Yaran; Pamukcu, Can; Sendul, Yekta; Oba, Mehmet Ersin;
Publication:Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology
Article Type:Report
Date:Jul 1, 2014
Previous Article:Surgical results in unilateral superior oblique muscle palsy/Tek tarafli ust oblik kas felcinde cerrahi sonuclarimiz.
Next Article:Biopsy results in patients initially diagnosed as idiopathic orbital inflammatory syndrome/Idyopatik orbita inflamasyon sendromu on tanili olgularda...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |