The place of the osteoplastic flap in the endoscopic era: indications and pitfalls.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the osteoplastic flap (OPF) procedure for frontal sinus pathology at our institution, including indications, revisions, obliteration vs. nonobliteration, and obliteration materials.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective review from 1998 to 2013.

METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes identified all OPF procedures. Demographic data, diagnoses, previous frontal procedures, obliteration materials, and outcomes were evaluated. Diagnoses were divided into two groups: inflammatory (refractory sinusitis, mucoceles, surgical material infections) and noninflammatory (tumors, cerebrospinal fluid leaks).

RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients underwent 73 OPF procedures: 36 obliterative and 37 nonobliterative/unobliterative. Inflammatory indications accounted for 76% of obliterated patients, but only 38% of nonobliterative procedures. Ten patients (17.5%) required revision, 90% of whom had an OPF for inflammatory indications. Only one patient who underwent an OPF procedure for noninflammatory pathology required revision. Twenty-four percent of patients obliterated with bone cement ultimately required complete removal to resolve infection.

CONCLUSIONS: The OPF approach is still valuable for pathology refractory to or inaccessible to endoscopic approaches. Infectious etiologies have a much higher revision rate. Careful selection of pathologies can reduce revision rates, but in some cases a repeated OPF procedure is the only viable alternative. When bone cement becomes infected the only resolution is complete removal.