Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Sharouny H, Omar RB
    Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2014 Sep;16(9):e7882.
    PMID: 25593739 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.7882
    INTRODUCTION: Sialolithiasis is the most common disease of salivary glands. Sialography is particularly important for the assessment of the outflow tract and in diagnosing obstructive salivary gland lesions including calculi.

    CASE PRESENTATION: We report on a 38-year-old female with sialolithiasis whom had Wharton's duct perforation, complicating the sialography. She was treated conservatively with a course of co-amoxiclav, oral prednisolone for three days and pain-killers. The patient was clinically well on follow-up reassessments at the end of the first week and three weeks post procedure.

    CONCLUSIONS: Perforation of salivary duct complicating the sialography is rare. Awareness of this potential complication and utilizing a good sialography technique need to be advocated amongst radiologists. Response to treatment by conservative management is preferred as illustrated in this case.

  2. Sharouny H, Narayanan P
    Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2015 Jan;17(1):e17104.
    PMID: 25763256 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.17104
    INTRODUCTION: Frontal sinus mucoceles are the commonest among all paranasal mucoceles. With introduction of functional endoscopic sinus surgery, surgeons prefer endoscopic management of sinus mucoceles, but lesions that appear in the lateral part of the frontal sinus can be difficult to access and often need external approaches.

    CASE PRESENTATION: We described a lateral frontal sinus mucocele with intra-orbital extension, which was successfully managed by endoscopic sinus surgery.

    CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic sinus surgery is the treatment of choice in most frontal sinus mucoceles including lateral frontal mucoceles.

  3. Sharouny H, Omar RB
    Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2014 Dec;16(12):e17066.
    PMID: 25763237 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.17066
    INTRODUCTION: Laryngeal stenosis has various causes and treatment options. Endoscopic resection of the stenotic part with CO2 laser is one of the treatment options of laryngotracheal stenosis. Keels are useful for preventing adhesion formation, restenosis and web formation, which may happen during the later stage. They can be put in place either via the endoscopic approach or through a micro thyroidotomy and are held in place with a heavy suture through cricothyroid and thyrohyoid membranes. They are left in place for two to four weeks, and then removed through the endoscopic approach under general anesthetics.

    CASE PRESENTATION: We report on a case of anterior glottis stenosis with keel aspiration for two weeks, after endoscopic CO2 laser resection of the stenotic section and keel placement. The patient was admitted to our center, where bronchoscopy was performed and the keel was removed. A new custom-made silastic keel was properly placed in raw areas and fixed to the skin with suture through the cricothyroid and thyrohyoid membranes. The keel was removed three weeks later.

    CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic keel placement should be done with heavy suture through cricothyroid and thyrohyoid membranes. Surgeons should suture the keel to the anterior laryngeal wall with specially designed Lichtenberger's needle-carriers to prevent complications such as keel aspiration, adhesion formation and imposing a second trip under general anesthetics, which put the patient at increased risk. The false vocal cord microflaps, as biological keels and a relatively new method may replace silastic keel placement in the future.

  4. Sharouny H, Narayanan P
    Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2014 Jul;16(7):e17133.
    PMID: 25237579 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.17133
    INTRODUCTION: A mucocele is an epithelial-lined, mucus-containing sac that can fill the sinus completely and expand gradually. Mucopyocele is an infected mucocele.

    CASE REPORT: We presented a case of left maxillary mucopyocele in a 58-year-old man that developed after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Computed tomography scan showed opacification of the left maxillary sinus expanding through the medial wall of the antrum with thinning and destruction of the adjacent structures. Endoscopic marsupialization of the lesion and left partial maxillectomy were performed. The cystic mass had yellowish thick mucopurulent fluid that was completely drained.

    CONCLUSIONS: A few cases of sphenoid sinus mucocele as a late complication of radiation therapy have been reported. Maxillary mucocele and mucopyocele can be considered as one of the late complications of radiotherapy to head and neck as a result of occlusion of sinus ostia by scarred mucosa.

  5. Faramarzi M, Shishegar M, Tofighi SR, Sharouny H, Rajagopalan R
    Iran J Otorhinolaryngol, 2019 Jan;31(102):11-17.
    PMID: 30783594
    Introduction: There are a few studies that compare the outcomes between primary and revision tympanoplasties. The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of type I tympanoplasty (i.e., synonymous to myringoplasty) and revision myringoplasty based on the closure of tympanic membrane perforation and hearing improvement.

    Materials and Methods: This prospective single-blind study was carried out on a total of 240 patients with tympanic membrane perforation at a tertiary referral center. The subjects underwent primary or revision myringoplasty. Grafting success rate and hearing results were measured and the comparison between the primary and revision groups was drawn.

    Results: Grafting success rate was reported as 96.6% (112 out of 116 cases) for myringoplasty, while in revision myringoplasty the success rate of 78.2% (97 out of 124 patients) was achieved (P=0.001). Speech reception threshold was 23.1±9.2 dB and 24.9±13.1 dB in the primary and revision groups, respectively (P>0.05). However, the percentage of air-bone gap on audiometry≤20 dB were 83.8% and 76% in the primary and revision groups, respectively (P=0.26).

    Conclusion: The findings of the present study have shown that although grafting success was reported significantly better in myringoplasty (tympanoplasty type 1), compared to that in revision myringoplasty, it did not reveal any superiority over revision tympanoplasty regarding the hearing outcomes. No consensus was achieved due to a great number of controversies in the literature.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links