Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to radiographically evaluate the diameters of the nasolacrimal duct (NLC) and infraorbital foramen (IOF) in patients operated on for antrochoanal polyps (ACP) and to investigate the association of these structures with the location of the polyp.

Materials and Methods: The transverse and anteroposterior diameters of NLC and IOF were measured from paranasal CT images of 40 patients who underwent functional endoscopic sinus surgery with a diagnosis of ACP between January 1, 2020, and January 15, 2025. Patients were classified according to the location of the polyp, its origin, and the status of sinus ventilation.

Results: While there was generally no significant difference in NLC diameters, in some subgroups the transverse diameters were found to be significantly larger on the normal side than on the pathological side. On the pathological side, a clear and significant narrowing of the IOF diameter was observed in all groups.

Conclusion: ACP causes morphological changes, particularly at the IOF, and the narrowing of this structure suggests bone remodeling. The effect on the NLC is more limited. A preliminary assessment of these anatomical structures during surgery planning is important to prevent possible complications.

Keywords: antrochoanal polyp, infraorbital foramen, nasolacrimal duct

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). This is an open-access article published by Bolu İzzet Baysal Training and Research Hospital under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

1.
Atik FN, Güneş A, Halicioglu S, Karali E. Analysis of ductus nasolacrimalis and infraorbital foramen diameter measurements in patients operated on for antrochoanal polyps. Northwestern Med J. 2026;6(2):109-15. https://doi.org/10.54307/2026.NWMJ.203

References

  1. Aslan G, Arslan İB. Antrochoanal polyp. Turkiye Klinikleri Ear Nose and Throat - Special Topics. 2022; 15(1): 8-12.
  2. Składzień J, Litwin JA, Nowogrodzka-Zagórska M, Wierzchowski W. Morphological and clinical characteristics of antrochoanal polyps: comparison with chronic inflammation-associated polyps of the maxillary sinus. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2001; 28(2): 137-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0385-8146(00)00108-5
  3. Akbay E, Özgür T, Çokkeser Y. Is there any relationship between the clinical, radiological and histopathologic findings in sinonasal polyposis? Turk Patoloji Derg. 2013; 29(2): 127-33. https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2013.01163
  4. Choudhury N, Hariri A, Saleh H, Sandison A. Diagnostic challenges of antrochoanal polyps: A review of sixty-one cases. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018; 43(2): 670-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12993
  5. Bidkar VG, Sajjanar AB, Patil P, Naik AS. Role of Computed Tomography Findings in the Quest of Understanding Origin of Antrochoanal Polyp. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 71(Suppl 3): 1800-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-017-1160-z
  6. Yaman H, Yilmaz S, Karali E, Guclu E, Ozturk O. Evaluation and management of antrochoanal polyps. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 3(2): 110-4. https://doi.org/10.3342/ceo.2010.3.2.110
  7. Gursoy M, Erdogan N, Cetinoglu YK, Dag F, Eren E, Uluc ME. Anatomic variations associated with antrochoanal polyps. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22(5): 603-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_419_18
  8. Swain SK. Antrochoanal polyp: a narrative review. Matrix Sci Pharma. 2022; 6(4): 81-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/mtsp.mtsp_18_22_1
  9. Saout Arrih B, Bijou W, Oukessou Y, Rouadi S, Abada R, Mahtar M. Evaluation of prognostic factors associated with antrochoanal polyp recurrence: Case series and literature review. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2025; 134: 111744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2025.111744
  10. Estes JL, Tsiouris AJ, Christos PJ, Lelli GJ. Three-dimensional volumetric assessment of the nasolacrimal duct in patients with obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 31(3): 211-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000000259
  11. Cengiz M, Karagülle M, Alkan E, Ertürk H, Süzen LB. Evaluation of anatomical and morphological characteristics of the infraorbital foramen. TOGÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2025; 5(1): 26-37. https://doi.org/10.52369/togusagbilderg.1560856
  12. Serter S, Günhan K, Can F, Pabuşçu Y. Transformation of the maxillary bone in adults with nasal polyposis: a CT morphometric study. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2010; 16(2): 122-4. https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.2895-09.2
  13. Şeker Ç, Çapar İ, Geduk G, et al. Assessment of the Presence of Infraorbital Foramen and Accessory Foramen in Adolescent and Adult Populations Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Ortadogu Tıp Derg. 2025; 10(3): 271-7. https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.1716626
  14. Désiré A, Ebogo M, Amougou M, Essono N, Zogo O. Assessment of infraorbital foramen position using computed tomography-scan in a cohort of Cameroonian adults: landmarks in facial surgery and anesthesiology. Pan Afr Med J. 2023; 45: 134. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2023.45.134.37733
  15. Mantilla E, Villamor P, De La Torre C, Álvarez-Neri H. Combined approach for paediatric recurrent antrochoanal polyp: a single-centre case series of 27 children. J Laryngol Otol. 2019; 133(7): 627-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215119000938
  16. Anbiaee N, Khodabakhsh R, Bagherpour A. Relationship between Anatomical Variations of Sinonasal Area and Maxillary Sinus Pneumatization. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 31(105): 229-34.
  17. Singh GB, Rana N, Tomar S, Malhotra S, Kumar S. Radiological evaluation of lacrimal apparatus injury after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Laryngol Otol. 2021; 135(3): 229-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215121000384
  18. Orellana-Donoso M, Romero-Zucchino D, Fuentes-Abarca A, et al. Infraorbital canal variants and its clinical and surgical implications. A systematic review. Surg Radiol Anat. 2024; 46(7): 1027-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-024-03348-3
  19. Osbon SA, Butaric LN. Investigating the relationship between infraorbital canal morphology and maxillary sinus size. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2023; 306(1): 110-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25007
  20. Bahşi I, Orhan M, Kervancıoğlu P, Yalçın ED. Morphometric evaluation and surgical implications of the infraorbital groove, canal and foramen on cone-beam computed tomography and a review of literature. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2019; 78(2): 331-43. https://doi.org/10.5603/FM.a2018.0084
  21. Phan TTH, Hoang NT, Le TB, Nguyen TT. Anatomical Variations in Nasal Cavities and Paranasal Sinuses on Computed Tomography in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025; 77(1): 120-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-024-05123-7
  22. Kumbul YÇ, Akın V, Yasan H, et al. Evaluation of the Relationship Between SNOT-22 Test Results and Topographic Course of the Infraorbital Nerve in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis. Eur J Rhinol Allergy. 2025; 8(1): 31-5. https://doi.org/10.5152/ejra.2025.24180