Advertisement

Submandibular Stones

  • Rachel Barry
  • Barry M. Schaitkin
  • Rohan R. WalvekarEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Sialolithiasis is most common in the submandibular glandular system. Traditional concepts demand gland removal for submandibular sialolithiasis, especially for hilar-glandular stones. Sialendoscopy and transoral combined approach techniques have made gland preservation feasible. A understanding of the anatomy of the submandibular glandular system and the floor of mouth is key to providing competent surgical care to patients who suffer from submandibular sialolithiasis. Current ideologies and techniques in the management of submandibular stones that facilitate gland preservation, are presented.

Keywords

Submandibular stones Sialolithiasis Floor mouth Submandibular gland Wharton’s duct 

Supplementary material

Video 6.1

Stent Video (WMV 22594 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Walvekar RR, Bomeli SR, Carrau RL, Schaitkin B. Combined approach technique for the management of large salivary stones. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:1125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sigismund PE, Zenk J, Koch M, Schapher M, Rudes M, Iro H. Nearly 3,000 salivary stones: some clinical and epidemiologic aspects. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1879–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marchal F, Dulguerov P. Sialolithiasis management: the state of the art. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129:951–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwartz N, Hazkani I, Goshen S. Combined approach sialendoscopy for management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Am J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;36:632–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallace E, Tauzin M, Hagan J, Schaitkin B, Walvekar RR. Management of giant sialoliths: review of the literature and preliminary experience with interventional sialendoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:1974–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walvekar RR, Tyler PD, Tammareddi N, Peters G. Robotic-assisted transoral removal of submandibular megalith. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:534–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woo SH, Kim JP, Kim JS, Jeong HS. Anatomical recovery of the duct of the submandibular gland after transoral removal of a hilar stone without sialodochoplasty: evaluation of a phase II clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52:951–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Capaccio P, Ottaviana F, Manzo R, Schindler A, Cesana B. Extracorporeal lithotripsy for salivary calculi: a long-term clinical experience. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:1069–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schrotzlmair F, Miller M, Pongratz T, Eder M, Johnson T, Vogeser M, von Holzschuher V, Zengel P, Sroka R. Laser lithotripsy of salivary stones: correlation with physical and radiologic parameters. Lasers Surg Med. 2015;47:342–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walvekar RR, Hoffman HT, Kolenda J, Hernandez S. Salivary stone pneumatic lithotripsy in a live porcine model. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;154:1023–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch M, Mantsopoulas K, Schapher M, von Scotti F, Iro H. Intraductal pneumatic lithotripsy for salivary stones with the stonebreaker: preliminary experience. Laryngoscope. 2016;126:1545–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Barry
    • 1
  • Barry M. Schaitkin
    • 2
  • Rohan R. Walvekar
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck SurgeryLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations