, Volume 268, Issue 7, pp 1013-1015
Date: 18 Feb 2011

Is routine histopathological analysis of nasal polyposis specimens necessary?

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


Our objective is to evaluate the incidence of unexpected pathologies in routine nasal polyposis specimens and necessity for histopathological evaluation of nasal polyps. A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent nasal polyposis surgery between January 2004 and June 2010 were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of patients with bilateral nasal polyposis. Group 2 consisted of patients with unilateral nasal polyposis. One hundred and seventeen patients (81 male, 36 female) were involved in this study. The mean age was 44.9 ± 17.7 years, ranging between 18 and 72 years. Group 1 consisted of bilateral nasal polyposis specimens. Eighty-five patients were identified with bilateral nasal polyposis. From these 85 patients, no specimens present any evidence of occult pathology on histopathological examination. Group 2 consisted of unilateral nasal polyposis specimens. There were two cases of allergic fungal sinusitis, two of inverting papilloma, one of mucocele, one of plasmacytoma, one of hemangioma, one of esthesioneuroblastoma, and one of schwannoma. Final histopathology of the remaining 23 patients was consistent with inflammation and/or nasal polyposis. We think that in cases of unilateral polyps histopathological examination of the entire material is mandatory. However, routine histological examination of bilateral nasal polyposis may possibly not be necessary in cases where the clinical assessment very clearly has not disclosed any unusual or suspicious signs.

Presented at the XXXIIth Congress of the Turkish National Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 27–31 October 2010, Antalya, Turkey.