A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Success rate and complications of sialendoscopy and sialolithotripsy
in patients with parotid sialolithiasis: a systematic review
Maarten Galdermans
1
&Bert Gemels
2
Published online: 11 March 2020
#Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
Purpose To assess the success rate and complications of sialendoscopy and sialolithotripsy for parotid sialolithiasis.
Materials and methods A total of 228 articles were identified by the electronic database search regarding the topics
sialendoscopy and sialolithotripsy. Following independent then joint review of titles and abstracts, 109 articles were selected
for the full review. Thirteen of these were chosen for data extraction from which 1285 patients with parotid salivary stones were
identified. Extracted data included number of patients, age, gender, location, management, and outcomes.
Results All articles combined, 1285 patients with parotid salivary stones were included with a successful treatment in 1139
patients. The success rated ranged from 71.4 to 100% with a mean of 88.7%. Both partial as complete success was achieved.
Although minor complications were frequent, no major complications occurred.
Conclusions Sialendoscopy and sialolithotripsy are best suited as first choice treatment—if conservative therapy failed—for the
management of parotid gland sialolithiasis. It is a valuable and feasible treatment option with no major complications. Selection
of cases will ensure the best prognosis. Although there is no indefinite stone size, the smaller the calculus, the greater the
probability of a symptom-free patient.
Keywords Sialolithiasis .Sialendoscopy .Sialolithotripsy .Parotid gland .Conservative treatment
Introduction
Sialolithiasis accounts for approximately 60–70% of major
salivary gland diseases caused by obstructive sialadenitis
and is the most common non-neoplastic disease of the salivary
glands. Most frequently, and mainly unilaterally, the stones
are located in the submandibular gland (83%) and less fre-
quently in the parotid (10%) or sublingual (7%) gland [1].
The estimated prevalence of sialolithiasis in the general pop-
ulation is about 1.2% [2].
Ultrasonography (US) is the method of choice for diagnos-
ing sialolithiasis after anamnesis and clinical examination [3].
The accuracy of US for the diagnosis of salivary calculi with a
diameter of more than 1.5 mm can reach up to 99% in expe-
rienced hands. Both radiopaque and nonradiopaque stones can
be detected and their size can be evaluated; however, these
results are greatly operator dependent [2]. Other imaging tech-
niques can additionally be used, including plain sialography,
radiography, scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), or
magnetic resonance sialography [4]. With all these techniques
combined, most of the stones can easily be identified. US can
visualize both radiopaque as radiolucent stones, whereas the
other techniques are mostly specialized in identifying radi-
opaque stones. As a diagnostic tool, sialendoscopy is a mini-
mally invasive method withhigh sensitivity and specificity for
ductal pathology superior to US or sialography with an esti-
mate of 100% [5].
There are different therapeutic options to treat sialolithiasis
in patients where a conservative approach has not given the
desired results. Until a few years ago, surgical removal of the
gland was the method of choice in 40% of these patients, but
currently, alternative non-invasive or minimally invasive ap-
proaches are being used. The first choice of treatment when
the stones are small (< 5 mm) or mobile is interventional/
therapeutic sialendoscopy. The stones will first be approached
*Maarten Galdermans
maartengaldermans@hotmail.com
1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rijnstate Hospital
Arnhem, Arnhem, Netherlands
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (2020) 24:145–150
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-020-00834-x
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.