• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
    • History of Otolaryngology
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Single-Port Endoscopic Removal of Forehead Osteoma: An Otolaryngologist’s Procedure

by Kachorn Seresirikachorn, MD, PhD, Lu Hui Png, MD, and Richard J. Harvey, MD, PhD • January 22, 2024

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

INTRODUCTION 

Forehead osteoma is a benign tumor lesion, although mostly asymptomatic, creating significant cosmetic concerns for the patient. Traditionally, either a direct open approach with a forehead incision along the relaxed free tension line or a large coronal incision in the hair-bearing skin is made to remove forehead osteoma. However, an inevitable scar is the main issue for a direct open approach (J Craniofac Surg. 2006. doi:10.1097/00001665-200605000-00007). Additionally, there is the risk of temporary or permanent scalp paresthesia from the supraorbital or supratrochlear nerve injury.

You Might Also Like

  • How To: Hidden Port Approach to Endoscopic Pericranial Scalp Flap for Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction
  • Potential Advantage Using Robotic Thyroidectomy via Posterior Neck Approach with the DaVinci Single Port System
  • What Is the Optimal Timing for Dividing a Forehead Flap?
  • How To: Transoral Endoscopic Vestibular Approach to the Sistrunk Procedure
Explore This Issue
January 2024

Endoscope-assisted removal of forehead osteoma has been described, but it is not clear to many patients which surgical specialty has the appropriate training for this approach (J Craniofac Surg. 2006. doi:10.1097/00001665-200605000-00007; J Craniofac Surg. 1995. doi:10.1097/00001665-199511000-00021; Formos J Surg. 2015. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005185; Ann Plast Surg. 2008. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31816d829a; Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2019.04.004). Referrals to plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and general surgeons are common, but otolaryngologists have the core skill set required for this procedure. The excellent visualization from the endoscope creates success in complete removal and recontouring of the forehead without nerve injury. Moreover, the hidden incision in the frontal hairline gives excellent cosmetic outcomes.

Here, we describe our single-port endoscopic removal of forehead osteoma technique and the associated outcomes.

METHOD

A retrospective review of consecutive adult patients with forehead osteoma managed with single-port endoscopic removal of forehead osteoma was performed. Success in the primary outcomes was measured by the complete removal of the osteoma, which could not be observed by either the patient or the surgeon, and the restoration of contour without irregularities in the forehead, which also could not be seen or palpated by the patient and the surgeon. Secondary outcomes were surgical morbidity, defined as early (<90 days) or late (>90 days). Early morbidity included periorbital swelling/bruising, infection, temporary scalp paresthesia, forehead hematoma, and pain requiring additional analgesia. Late morbidity included permanent scalp paresthesia, irregularity of forehead contour, and visible surgical scarring.

Preparation

The operation was performed under general anesthesia. The surgeon operated in the sitting position at the top of the operating bed. The endoscope monitor was placed above the patient in front of the surgeon. The patient’s head was in a neutral anatomic position. The boundary of frontal osteoma was marked. The hair was divided by bush up and down above the frontal hairline without a haircut. The hair division line was perpendicular to the osteoma. The “deckled” hairline incision of 1–2 cm was drawn in the hair division line. The incision, tumor site, and endoscopic instruments’ access path were infiltrated with 1% ropivacaine and 1:100,000 adrenaline.

Surgical Technique

The deckled hairline incision was made with the 15° ophthalmic knife. Needle-point diathermy coagulation occurred to the galeal layer, setting 12. Under retraction, the surgeon blunt dissected, vertically through the galea, to the subperiosteal plane down to the subperiosteal layer. Then, a 4-mm 0° endoscope was inserted under the subperiosteal plane. The subperiosteal dissection was performed down to the osteoma’s cephalic and lateral border, extending laterally to ensure full visualization. Dissection inferior and below the border of the osteoma was facilitated with an ethmoid curette.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Head and Neck, How I Do It, Practice Focus Tagged With: endoscopic surgery, osteomaIssue: January 2024

You Might Also Like:

  • How To: Hidden Port Approach to Endoscopic Pericranial Scalp Flap for Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction
  • Potential Advantage Using Robotic Thyroidectomy via Posterior Neck Approach with the DaVinci Single Port System
  • What Is the Optimal Timing for Dividing a Forehead Flap?
  • How To: Transoral Endoscopic Vestibular Approach to the Sistrunk Procedure

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Where should ENT publications draw the line on authors' use of generative AI?

View Results

Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Rhinology’s Persistent Gender Gap
  • The Example We Set: Thoughts on the End of Residency Training
  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board: Deadline Extended
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • History of the Cochlear Implant
    • When a “Blocked Ear” Isn’t Obstructive ETD
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name
    • ENTs Urged to Look Beyond Refractory Sinus Disease for Underlying Immune Deficiency
    • When a “Blocked Ear” Isn’t Obstructive ETD
    • What Does It Mean to Be Written by a Human?
    • Reevaluating the CMS 90-Day CPAP Adherence Requirement: Persistent Use Among Early Nonadherent Patients
    • Vocal Outcomes After COVR in Porcine Bilateral Vocal Fold Resection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939