• Doo-Sik Kong, Hyo Yeol Kim, Se-Hwan Kim, Jin-Young Min, Do-Hyun Nam, Kwan Park, Hun-Jong Dhong, and Jong Hyun Kim.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. kds026@skku.edu
• Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011 Apr 1;153(4):807-13.

ObjectiveWe assessed the outcomes of various reconstructive methods for skull base defect after endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) depending on the degree of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks.MethodsBetween Jan. 2008 and Sep. 2009, 122 consecutive patients underwent 124 EEA for sellar and extra-sellar lesions. Intraoperative CSF leaks were classified as grade 0, no intraoperative CSF leak; grade 1, low output; and grade 2, high-output based on the degree of CSF leakage and size of opening in the arachnoid membrane (<5 or ≥5 mm).ResultsPostoperative CSF leaks or meningitis occurred in 13 of 124 cases (10.5%). In 77 patients with grade 0, there was no postoperative CSF leak. Among 20 patients with grade 1 CSF leaks, four patients developed meningitis or postoperative CSF leak. Postoperative CSF leaks occurred in nine of 26 patients (34.6%) with grade 2 leaks. Comparison of reconstructive methods revealed that gasket-seal method provided better control of CSF leaks than free-fat graft in patients with grade 2 leaks (11.8% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.028). However, in grades 0 and 1, we found no difference among the various reconstructive methods.ConclusionThe selection of reconstructive methods for skull base defects should be determined by the degree of CSF leaks. Although grade 0 or 1 leak requires relatively conservative management such as simple closure or free-tissue grafting, a more aggressive reconstructive technique is required to prevent postoperative complication in grade 2 CSF leak.

50 keywords...

hide…