ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Location Matters for Proximal Hilar Submandibular Stone Removal: Position Relative to the Mylohyoid.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Location Matters for Proximal Hilar Submandibular Stone Removal: Position Relative to the Mylohyoid.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify imaging predictors for successful sialendoscopy-assisted removal of proximal/hilar submandibular stones.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with sialolithiasis near the hilum of the submandibular gland (SMG). Two independent reviewers measured CT images for stone size, number, location relative to the mylohyoid, and distance from the inferior mandible.
resultsSeventy-six patients were evaluated. Stones were located at the mylohyoid plane in 52 patients (68.4%), superior to the mylohyoid in 9 (11.8%), and inferior to the mylohyoid in 15 (19.7%). A combined transoral approach was required in 65 (85.5%) patients. Proximal/hilar SMG stones were successfully removed in 82.9% (n = 63), with higher removal rates in patients with stones located superior to the mylohyoid line (100.0%) compared to at (84.6%) or inferior (60.0%, p = 0.038). Shorter average distance between the inferior border of the mandible and the stone was associated with successful removal (p < 0.001). Maximum stone diameter was significantly larger in successful cases compared to unsuccessful cases (8.0 vs. 5.4 mm; p = 0.043). Stones visible with sialendoscopy (n = 55, 72.4%) were associated with higher successful removal rates than for stones not seen with sialendoscopy.
conclusionsGland preservation techniques for proximal/hilar submandibular sialolithiasis required proximal transoral incision in 85.5% of cases. Imaging characteristics, including stone position superior to or at the mylohyoid plane and larger stone size, were predictors of successful sialendoscopy-assisted transoral removal. Imaging findings can assist with surgical planning for proximal/hilar submandibular stones. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.