Abstract
Sialolithiasis occurs in approximately 0.45% to 1.20% of the general population. The typical clinical symptom manifests as a painful swelling of the affected glands after a meal or upon salivary stimulation, which extremely affects the life quality of the patients. With the development of sialendoscopy and lithotripsy, most sialoliths can be successfully removed with preservation of the gland. However, sialoliths in the deep hilar-parenchymal submandibular ducts and impacted parotid stones located in the proximal ducts continue to pose great challenges. Our research center for salivary gland diseases (in Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology) has used sialendoscopy for 17 years and treated >2 000 patients with salivary gland calculi. The success rate was approximately 92% for submandibular gland calculi and 95% for parotid calculi. A variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques have been applied and developed, which add substantial improvements in the treatment of refractory sialolithiasis. Further, the radiographic positioning criteria and treatment strategy are proposed for these intractable stones. Most of the hilar-parenchymal submandibular stones are successfully removed by a transoral approach, including transoral duct slitting and intraductal basket grasping, while a small portion of superficial stones can be removed by a mini-incision in submandibular area. Impacted stones located in the distal third of parotid gland ducts are removed via "peri-ostium incision", which is applied to avoid a cicatricial stenosis from a direct ostium incision. Impacted parotid stones located in the middle and proximal third of the Stensen's duct are removed via a direct mini-incision or a peri-auricular flap. A direct transcutaneous mini-incision is commonly performed under local anesthesia with an imperceptible scar, and is indicated for most of impacted stones located in the middle third, hilum and intraglandular ducts. By contrast, a peri-auricular flap is performed under general anesthesia with relatively larger operational injury of the gland parenchyma, and should be best reserved for deeper intraglandular stones. Laser lithotripsy has been applied in the treatment of sialolithiasis in the past decade, and holmium ∶YAG laser is reported to have the best therapeutic effects. During the past 3 years, our research group has performed laser lithotripsy for a few cases with intractable salivary stones. From our experiences, withdrawal of the endoscopic tip 0.5-1.0 cm away from the extremity of the laser fiber, consistent saline irrigation, and careful monitoring of gland swelling are of vital importance for avoidance of injuries of the ductal wall and the vulnerable endoscope lens during lithotripsy. Larger calculi require multiple treatment procedures. The risk of ductal stenosis can be alleviated by endoscopic dilation. In summary, appropriate use of various endoscopy-assisted lithotomy helps preserve the gland function in most of the patients with refractory sialolithiasis. Further studies are needed in the following aspects: Transcervical removal of intraglandular submandibular stones, intraductal laser lithotripsy of impacted parotid stones and deep submandibular stones, evaluation of long-term postoperative function of the affected gland, et al.
Keywords: Sialolithiasis, Parotid gland, Submandibular gland, Lithotomy, Laser lithotripsy
唾液腺结石病在人群中的发病率为0.45%~1.20%,主要表现为受累腺体反复肿胀、疼痛,进食时加重,扪压腺体可见脓性分泌物溢出[1-3]。随着唾液腺内镜及碎石技术的应用与发展,多数唾液腺结石病的治疗已不再是难题,但对于位置深在的下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石及位置靠后的腮腺嵌顿性结石等复杂病例的治疗仍存在挑战,需要进一步突破[4-6]。
北京大学口腔医院唾液腺疾病研究中心开展唾液腺内镜诊疗工作17年来,共完成内镜辅助下唾液腺结石病的治疗2 000余例,包括下颌下腺结石病1 600余例,腮腺结石病400例,其中疑难唾液腺结石病约占50%左右。随着多种治疗方法的应用,疑难唾液腺结石病的治疗有了进一步的进展,总体来说,下颌下腺结石的取石成功率 > 92%[7],腮腺结石的取石成功率约95%[8],且大多数保存腺体具有较好的分泌功能[3, 9]。
1. 复杂下颌下腺结石病的分型与治疗
1.1. 下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石的分型
唾液腺结石病约80%~90%发生在下颌下腺,导管前中段的下颌下腺结石可在内镜辅助下通过口内切口或取石篮取出,但位置深在的下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石的治疗有一定困难[7]。根据临床检查情况及影像学表现,本中心提出了下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石的分型方法。下颌下腺腺门轴柄部为下颌下腺导管向下、向外、向后方走行并进入下颌下腺腺实质的部位。将位于下颌下腺腺门轴柄部且前缘不低于轴柄部的结石定义为腺门部结石。将低于下颌下腺腺门轴柄部的结石定义为腺内段结石,又分为近腺门型、腺体中心型及浅表型。近腺门型结石位于腺内导管,且距离腺门轴柄部 < 0.5 cm;腺体中心型结石位于主导管腺内段,且距离腺门轴柄部≥0.5 cm;浅表型结石距离腺体外下侧被膜 < 1.0 cm[7]。对下颌下腺腺内段结石的进一步分型,有利于指导下颌下腺腺内段结石治疗方法的选择(图 1)。
图 1.
下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石分型示意图
Schemas of four types of hilum and intraglandular submandibular gland stones
A, hilum; B, post-hilar; C, central; D, superficial. The hilum was marked as a dotted line.
1.2. 口内途径治疗复杂下颌下腺结石病
对于下颌下腺腺门部结石,国内外多篇文献报道了经口内途径取石的经验,不同作者报告的操作技术存在一定差异,多数为全身麻醉下操作[7, 10-11],其相关并发症主要包括舌神经损伤、舌下腺囊肿、导管狭窄、结石复发等,发生率为7%~20%[10-11],但关于位置深在的下颌下腺腺内段结石的相关报道较少。
本中心于2008年1月至2021年6月通过口内途径治疗下颌下腺腺门部结石546例及腺内段结石233例,主要采用局部麻醉,仅5例在全身麻醉下完成手术。主要手术方法包括腺门部切开法、腺内主导管追踪法、腺体被膜切开法和取石篮抓取法,其中腺内主导管追踪法、腺体被膜切开法由本课题组首次提出[7]。具体操作方法是:内镜定位后助手用力将下颌下腺向前上方推压,使口底变浅,然后于口底后部舌下腺尾部与舌体侧缘之间的凹陷处切开2.0~2.5 cm切口,剥离舌下腺向外,尽量不破坏舌下腺腺泡。遇较大静脉则尽量分离,不必结扎;遇舌神经则钝性分离予以保护,避免钳夹或锐性分离。确认结石位置并充分分离导管腺门部,切开管壁取出结石(腺门部切开法);若结石位于腺内段,则自腺门部继续向腺内分离主导管,直至结石可探及,切开管壁取石(腺内主导管追踪法);若结石距导管轴柄部较远,但距腺体被膜较近,则切开结石相应腺体被膜取石,而不过多解剖主导管(腺体被膜切开法);若导管经扩张后结石与管壁分离松动,可结合取石篮套索取石(取石篮抓取法)。本组779例复杂下颌下腺结石取石总成功率为92.2%,其中腺门部结石取石成功率为98.7%,腺内段结石取石成功率为76.8%;总并发症发生率为6.9%,未见舌神经永久性损伤等严重并发症发生。平均随访31个月,临床疗效优良率为93.6%[7]。
我们认为,通过术前术中定位及唾液腺内镜引导,结合精细的操作技术,绝大多数复杂下颌下腺结石可成功取出,腺体得以保留。这类手术成功的关键是患者口底较松弛,下颌下腺可被充分上抬;同时术中对于导管腺门部及舌神经的分离操作要轻柔,避免过度牵拉造成严重损伤。必要时,可在全身麻醉下操作,术中充分分离暴露导管腺门部及腺体前内侧被膜,可进一步提高取石成功率。
1.3. 口外途径治疗复杂下颌下腺结石病
研究表明,下颌下腺腺内的小动脉、小静脉及叶间导管系统均以腺叶为单位,呈树枝状分布,这为口外入路切开腺体取石提供了重要的显微解剖学依据[12]。国内学者曾报告采用口外切开法治疗下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石[13-14]。本课题组于2018年1月至2021年6月,采用口外切开法治疗浅表型下颌下腺腺内段结石3例和距离体表较近的中心型结石1例。具体操作方法为:结合超声定位标记,于颌下区设计2~3 cm水平切口,分层切开并暴露腺体被膜;结合超声和CT影像定位,切开被膜,于腺内分离,反复确认位置后切开腺内导管,取出结石;内镜下经导管或术区伤口反复探查并冲洗,借助刮匙、网篮等器械取尽结石;创口分层严密缝合,加压包扎。术后使用抗生素预防感染,使用阿托品抑制唾液分泌,并嘱患者忌食刺激性食物。最终4例结石均完全取出,1例因取石后周围腺体组织破损较重,同期行下颌下腺摘除术。术后均未观察到舌神经、面神经损伤或涎瘘等并发症;随访6~42个月,3例腺体保存病例腺体分泌良好。
2. 嵌顿性腮腺结石病的分型与治疗
2.1. 腮腺结石病的分段及定位方法
腮腺结石病在唾液腺结石病中约占10%~20%。较小的可移动的腮腺结石,通过内镜结合取石篮可成功取出,但嵌顿性结石因腮腺位置及周围解剖的原因,其治疗难度较大[2, 8]。本课题组提出了腮腺结石的定位方法,以利于选择适当的治疗方法。通过螺旋CT观察腮腺导管的走行,将轴面图像调至可以显示大部分腮腺导管的截面,将上颌第二磨牙近中邻面和咬肌前缘的连线与导管的交点定义为A点,下颌升支后缘和咬肌后缘的连线与导管的交点定义为B点(图 2)。通过A点与B点,将腮腺导管分为导管前段(A点以前)、导管中段(两点之间)、腺门(B点)及腺内段(B点之后)[15]。
图 2.
腮腺结石定位的螺旋CT轴位图
Axial spiral CT for parotid calculus localization
The junction of the main duct and the white line running from the mesiobuccal root of maxillary 2nd molar through the anterior border of the masseter was defined as "A" (arrow), while the intersection of the main duct and the red line passing the posterior margins of the mandibular ramus and the masseter muscle was defined as "B" (arrow).
2.2. 口内途径治疗导管前段嵌顿性结石
国外有研究采用导管旁切口治疗腮腺导管前段嵌顿性结石,认为该途径可避免导管口直接切开造成的瘢痕和狭窄。国内叶欣等[16]即通过该方法对20例腮腺结石病患者进行治疗,其中15例取石成功。
本中心于2011年3月至2021年9月,经导管旁切口治疗导管前段嵌顿性结石66例,包括直接嵌顿于导管前段的结石21例和经取石篮抓取并牵拉后嵌于导管前段的结石45例,均成功取出结石。具体操作方法:在管口前上方1 cm处切一长度1.5~2.5 cm的弧形切口,切开黏膜后使用缝线牵拉,切开颊肌,采用拉钩牵拉颊脂垫以充分暴露视野,紧贴导管壁分离导管;内镜下进一步定位结石,于结石相应处切开导管取石;确认结石无残留后,引入3~4F(1F≈0.33 mm)塑料管至腺门处作为临时支架,间断缝合黏膜切口,并予加压包扎1~3 d,2周后取出支架导管[16]。上述66例患者的结石距导管口距离为1~2 cm,与A点的距离为0.5~1.5 cm。随访1~10年,4例因导管狭窄导致导管闭锁,最终腺体萎缩;2例结石复发再次内镜下成功取石;余60例分泌良好。
2.3. 口外途径治疗腮腺导管中后段嵌顿性结石
对于腮腺导管中后段的嵌顿性结石,国外文献报道多采用体外冲击波碎石,近年来还出现了导管内激光碎石、气动碎石[17]及口外切口取石(包括耳周翻瓣取石和颊部小切口取石)[15],但多数文献报告的病例数较少,不同学者提出的适应证差异较大,且并发症发生率可达15%~25%[18]。
因国内尚缺乏成熟的唾液腺碎石设备,腮腺导管中后段的嵌顿性结石多采用口外途径切开取石。本中心于2006年12月至2022年4月通过口外途径治疗腮腺导管中后段结石73例,其中57例通过颊部小切口治疗,16例通过耳周翻瓣入路治疗[8, 15]。具体操作方法如下:(1)颊部小切口:在超声及内镜双重定位下,于结石对应颊部皮肤标记处切开皮肤,长度1.5~2.0 cm,分离皮下组织、腮腺咬肌筋膜,仔细寻找并分离解剖主导管,保护面神经,于结石处切开导管取出结石;(2)耳周翻瓣入路:于耳周行改良“S”型切口,切口长度5.0~6.0 cm,翻瓣至可充分暴露结石部位后解剖导管取石。两种方法均在取石成功后自管口引入内镜探查主导管及分支导管,反复清洗导管,扩张导管狭窄段,引入3~4F塑料管(超过导管切口至腺内主导管)作为临时支架(1~2周),缝线固定,严密缝合腮腺导管及腮腺咬肌筋膜,分层缝合皮下组织及皮肤,局部加压包扎1~2周。本组73例采用颊部切口和耳周翻瓣入路的患者涎瘘发生率分别为8.8%(5/57)和25.0%(4/16),发生涎瘘的患者通过术后进一步加压包扎及抑制唾液分泌处理均得以愈合。患者中1例发生暂时性面神经损伤,于3个月后恢复正常;除个别瘢痕体质及术后发生感染的患者外,绝大多数瘢痕轻微,患者较满意。术后随访3个月至11年,其中3例出现导管闭锁但无明显不适,5例出现较明显阻塞症状,原因可能为术前或术中导管及腺体功能损伤,余65例腺体功能良好。
从我们的经验看,颊部小切口创伤小,瘢痕轻微,可在局部麻醉下完成,适用于导管中段、腺门部及位置稍浅的腺内段结石;而耳周翻瓣入路取石创伤较大,且多需全身麻醉下操作,故其适应证应限于部分位置深在的腺内导管结石[15]。另外,术后长期随访,及时处理导管狭窄等并发症,有利于腺体功能的恢复。
3. 激光碎石的初步探索
3.1. 激光碎石的应用
碎石技术主要包括体外冲击波碎石、导管内气动碎石和激光碎石[17]。激光碎石已广泛应用于泌尿系结石的治疗中,近十年来也逐步应用于唾液腺结石病的治疗。激光碎石技术中,有多种类型的激光可应用于唾液腺结石病的治疗,研究结果显示钬激光治疗效果最佳[17]。激光碎石的原理是: 通过吸收激光脉冲使结石表面的离子和电子形成快速扩张腔,从而产生高压冲击波碎裂结石。多篇文献证明了激光碎石的效果,成功率可高达80%~100%,均无严重并发症[17, 19-23],术后1~2年随访中,症状缓解率及结石清除率达90%以上[19, 23]。本课题组近3年来初步开展钬激光碎石技术,治疗了12例下颌下腺结石病及3例腮腺结石病,选择的适应证为中等大小(5~8 mm)、中等硬度且经口内途径难以取出的复杂结石病患者,如位置深在的下颌下腺结石或导管中后段的腮腺结石。
3.2. 激光碎石的操作技术
本中心采用的是200 μm或272 μm的光纤,脉冲频率8~10 Hz,脉冲能量0.5~1.0 J,功率4~10 W[20]。通过内镜观察到结石后,调整激光光纤的方向和位置,使碎石光纤伸出内镜头5~10 mm并与结石密贴,避免散射的激光能量和热量损伤内镜头。结石部分击碎后,可采用网篮取出碎屑,或结石变小松动后经网篮牵拉至导管中段,结合局部切开的方式取出。在碎石过程中,使用生理盐水持续冲洗以达到冷却降温的效果,同时达到冲洗碎石、清晰视野的目的;但应避免短时间大量冲洗导致组织过度水肿,故需注意观察局部肿胀情况,并密切监测导管的不良反应,如管壁水肿、苍白及管壁破损穿孔等[17, 20]。对于较大的结石,碎石难度增加,需要分次治疗。取石后,为防止导管发生瘢痕性狭窄或闭锁,需放置3~5F塑料管作为临时支架,1~2周后取出。本组病例碎石成功率为93.3%(14/15)。
3.3. 激光碎石的优势与风险
激光碎石的优势在于为部分疑难唾液腺结石病提供了新的治疗选择。对于口底较深、难以耐受局部麻醉下取石的下颌下腺腺门部与腺内段结石患者来说,提高了取石成功的可能;对于导管中后段的腮腺结石,碎石技术减少了患者面部瘢痕影响面容的忧虑。但对于多发、直径较大(> 8 mm)以及硬度过高的结石来说,激光碎石并不是最佳选择。
激光碎石的主要风险为碎石过程中损伤导管壁,导致术后导管发生狭窄甚至闭锁。导管狭窄可通过导管冲洗及内镜扩张治疗缓解;若发生导管闭锁,则最终腺体萎缩。有研究表明,腮腺结石激光取石术后导管狭窄的发生率分别为1/7[21]和1/9[22]。本课题组使用激光碎石技术治疗的3例腮腺结石病患者中,1例术后发生导管狭窄,经内镜治疗无效后发生导管闭锁;12例下颌下腺结石中2例发生导管狭窄,经内镜治疗后症状明显缓解;其余患者术后随访3~6个月,均无明显阻塞症状。
今后,本项目组将进一步完善口内外途径治疗复杂下颌下腺结石病和腮腺结石病的术中及术后处置方法,继续探索激光碎石技术的适应证及技术细节,以期进一步提高取石成功率和腺体功能保存率。
References
- 1.姜 岚, 张 晔, 柳 登高, et al. 涎腺内镜辅助颌下腺腺门结石取出术疗效分析. 中华口腔医学杂志. 2012;43(3):157–159. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2012.03.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.叶 欣, 谢 晓艳, 柳 登高, et al. 内镜辅助腮腺结石取出术67例疗效分析. 中华口腔医学杂志. 2014;49(11):645–648. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2014.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zhang YQ, Ye X, Meng Y, et al. Evaluation of parotid gland function before and after endoscopy-assisted stone removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(2):327.e2–328.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.09.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Liu DG, Jiang L, Xie XY, et al. Sialoendoscopy-assisted sialolithectomy for submandibular hilar calculi. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(2):295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.赵 雅宁, 张 亚琼, 叶 欣, et al. 内镜辅助下颌下腺腺门和腺内结石不同取石方法的探讨. 中华口腔医学杂志. 2018;53(12):826–831. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.McGurk M, MacBean AD, Fan KFM, et al. Endoscopically assisted operative retrieval of parotid stones. Br J Oral and Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44(2):157–160. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2005.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhao YN, Zhang YQ, Zhang LQ, et al. Treatment strategy of hilar and intraglandular stones in Wharton's duct: 12-year experience. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(10):2360–2365. doi: 10.1002/lary.28361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ye X, Zhang YQ, Xie XY, et al. Transoral and transcutaneous approach for removal of parotid gland calculi: A 10-year endosco-pic experience. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pahtol Oral Radiol. 2017;124(2):121–127. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhao Y, Zheng D, Zhang L, et al. Recovery of gland function after endoscopy-assisted removal of impacted hilo-parenchymal stones in the Wharton's duct[J/OL]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, (2022-10-07)[2022-11-05]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2022.09.035.
- 10.Schapher M, Mantsopoulos K, Messbacher ME, et al. Transoral submandibulotomy for deep hilar submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(9):2038–2044. doi: 10.1002/lary.26459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Capaccio P, Gaffuri M, Rossi V, et al. Sialendoscope-assisted transoral removal of hilo-parenchymal sub-mandibular stones: Surgical results and subjective scores. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017;37(2):122–127. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Xu H, Mao C, Liu J M, et al. Microanatomic study of the vascular and duct system of the submandibular gland. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(4):1103–1107. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Xiao JQ, Sun HJ, Qiao QH, et al. Advantages of submandibular gland preservation surgery over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125(5):e113–e117. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Xie L, Pu Y, Yu C, et al. Transfacial lithotomy approach to intraparenchymal stones in the submandibular gland: Our primary exploration. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;60(2):201–203. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zheng DN, Zhao YN, Zhang LQ, et al. Comparison of two transcutaneous approaches for the removal of impacted parotid stones[J/OL]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, (2022-10-19)[2022-11-05]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2022.10.007.
- 16.叶 欣, 张 亚琼, 赵 雅宁, et al. 内镜辅助腮腺结石口内途径取出术的适应证与疗效分析. 中华口腔医学杂志. 2019;54(1):17–22. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Koch M, Schapher M, Mantsopoulos K, et al. Intraductal lithotripsy in sialolithiasis using the calculase Ⅲ Ho ∶YAG laser: First experiences. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53(4):488–498. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hills AJ, Holden AM, McGurk M. Sialendoscopy-assisted transfacial removal of parotid calculi. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017;37(2):128–131. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Thomas G, Stephan H, Niels H, et al. Sialendoscopy plus laser lithotripsy in sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland in 64 patients: A simple and safe procedure. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2019;46(5):797–802. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2019.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jason S, Lee MJ, Ben HC, et al. Optimal power settings for Holmium ∶YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2012;187(3):914–919. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sionis S, Caria RA, Trucas M, et al. Sialoendoscopy with and without holmium ∶YAG laser-assisted lithotripsy in the management of obstructive sialadenitis of major salivary glands. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52(1):58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Catra F, Farneti P, Cantore S, et al. Sialendoscopy for salivary stones: Principles, technical skills and therapeutic experiences. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017;37(2):102–112. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Koch M, Hung SH, Iro H, et al. Intraductal lithotripsy in sialolithiasis with two different Ho ∶YAG lasers: Presetting parameters, effectiveness, success rates. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(13):5548–5557. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_201907_18288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]