Anatomical variations of the frontal sinus drainage pathway according to the IFAC classification: frequency and interobserver agreement in a Paraguayan population
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). The rights of the works published in this journal are the property of the author and they are free to distribute and disseminate them, as long as the source is correctly cited.
How to Cite
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To determine the frequency of anatomical variations of the frontal sinus drainage pathway (FSDP) according to the International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification (IFAC) and to assess interobserver agreement in a Paraguayan population.
Methods: An observational, descriptive, analytical, cross-sectional study was conducted in 203 patients (406 FSDPs) with paranasal sinus computed tomography. Two otolaryngologists independently classified frontal-ethmoidal cells following the IFAC system. Frequencies, 95 % confidence intervals (CI95 %), and interobserver agreement were analyzed using Cohen’s κ, PABAK, and Gwet’s AC1, with clustering adjustment for paired sides per patient.
Results: Mean age was 37.3 ± 16.3 years; 54.7 % were female. The most frequent cells were agger nasi (95.1 %), suprabullar (85.2 %), and supra-agger nasi (50.3 %). Less frequent variants included frontal suprabullar (18.7 %) and frontal supra-agger nasi (17.5 %). No significant differences were found by sex, age group, or laterality (p > 0.05). Overall interobserver agreement was moderate-to-good (κ = 0.693; 95 % CI 0.64–0.74), with high consistency confirmed by PABAK (0.74) and Gwet’s AC1 (0.77).
Conclusion: The most frequently identified anatomical variations of the frontal sinus drainage pathway according to the IFAC classification were the agger nasi cell (95.1%), the suprabullar cell (85.2%), and the supra-agger nasi cell (50.3%). Application of the IFAC classification demonstrated moderate to good interobserver agreement (κ = 0.693), confirmed by the PABAK and AC1 indices, supporting its reproducibility and usefulness for anatomical assessment of the frontal recess in clinical practice and endoscopic surgical planning.
References
Bent JP, Cuilty-Siller C, Kuhn FA. The frontal sinus ostium: anatomical subdivisions. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 1994;110(3):323–9. doi:10.1177/019459989411000321
Wormald PJ. Surgery of the frontal recess and frontal sinus. Rhinology. 2005;43(2):82–5.
Keros P. Über die praktische Bedeutung der Niveauunterschiede der Lamina cribrosa des Ethmoids. Zeitschrift für Laryngologie Rhinologie Otologie. 1962;809–13.
Stammberger HR, Kennedy DW. Paranasal sinuses: anatomic terminology and nomenclature. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology Supplement. 1995. DOI: 10.1177/000348949510410s01
Wormald PJ, Hoseman W, Callejas C. The International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification (IFAC). Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(7):677–96. doi:10.1002/alr.21738 DOI: 10.1002/alr.21738
Dantas EMS, Macedo TL. Anatomical variations of the frontal sinus drainage pathway according to the IFAC. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.10.007 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.10.007
Wormald PJ. Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: Anatomy, Three-Dimensional Reconstruction, and Surgical Technique. Thieme; 2017. DOI: 10.1055/b-0038-149997
Mafee MF. Preoperative imaging of the paranasal sinuses. Role of CT and MRI. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1993;26(4):535–59.
Ting JY, Wu A, Metson R. Frontal Sinus Cell Prevalence by Computed Tomography Analysis. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 2017;156(2):312–9. doi:10.1177/0194599816676458
Villarreal-Guerra AJ. Interobserver Reliability of Kuhn vs. IFAC Classification in Paranasal Sinus Computed Tomography. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1694042 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694042
Mena Canata C. Variantes anatómicas rinosinusales más frecuentes identificadas por tomografía computarizada. Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas (Asunción). 2013.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). https://www.ine.gov.py/. 2023. Paraguay. Censo Nacional de Población y Viviendas 2022: Resultados Finales.
Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Designing Clinical Research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-91 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-91
Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13–22. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. Veterinary Journal. 2010;184(2):127–32. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.01.003 DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.01.003
Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(5):423–9. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V
Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2008. doi:10.1348/000711006X126600 DOI: 10.1348/000711006X126600
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M. The STROBE statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. International Journal of Surgery. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
Bravo-Gutiérrez A, Low-López N, Revilla-Rodríguez E. Anatomía del complejo etmoidal frontal en población mexicana según la clasificación IFAC. Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana. 2021.
Ulloque-Caamaño L, Reyes-Guevara R. Variaciones anatómicas del receso frontal: evaluación tomográfica mediante la clasificación IFAC en una población colombiana. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina. 2020. doi:10.15446/revfacmed.v68n4.79584
Sabido-Bollain C. Prevalencia de celdas frontoetmoidales según la clasificación IFAC en pacientes con rinosinusitis crónica. Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana. 2018.