• Journal of neurosurgery · Mar 2019

    Evolution of the graded repair of CSF leaks and skull base defects in endonasal endoscopic tumor surgery: trends in repair failure and meningitis rates in 509 patients.

    • Andrew Conger, Fan Zhao, Xiaowen Wang, Amalia Eisenberg, Chester Griffiths, Felice Esposito, Ricardo L Carrau, Garni Barkhoudarian, and Daniel F Kelly.
    • 1Department of Neurosurgery, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.
    • J. Neurosurg. 2019 Mar 1; 130 (3): 861875861-875.

    ObjectiveThe authors previously described a graded approach to skull base repair following endonasal microscopic or endoscope-assisted tumor surgery. In this paper they review their experience with skull base reconstruction in the endoscopic era.MethodsA retrospective review of a single-institution endonasal endoscopic patient database (April 2010–April 2017) was undertaken. Intraoperative CSF leaks were graded based on size (grade 0 [no leak], 1, 2, or 3), and repair technique was documented across grades. The series was divided into 2 epochs based on implementation of a strict perioperative antibiotic protocol and more liberal use of permanent and/or temporary buttresses; repair failure rates and postoperative meningitis rates were assessed for the 2 epochs and compared.ResultsIn total, 551 operations were performed in 509 patients for parasellar pathology, including pituitary adenoma (66%), Rathke’s cleft cyst (7%), meningioma (6%), craniopharyngioma (4%), and other (17%). Extended approaches were used in 41% of cases. There were 9 postoperative CSF leaks (1.6%) and 6 cases of meningitis (1.1%). Postoperative leak rates for all 551 operations by grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 0%, 1.9%, 3.1%, and 4.8%, respectively. Fat grafts were used in 33%, 84%, 97%, and 100% of grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 leaks, respectively. Pedicled mucosal flaps (78 total) were used in 2.6% of grade 0–2 leaks (combined) and 79.5% of grade 3 leaks (60 nasoseptal and 6 middle turbinate flaps). Nasoseptal flap usage was highest for craniopharyngioma operations (80%) and lowest for pituitary adenoma operations (2%). Two (3%) nasoseptal flaps failed. Contributing factors for the 9 repair failures were BMI ≥ 30 (7/9), lack of buttress (4/9), grade 3 leak (4/9), and postoperative vomiting (4/9). Comparison of the epochs showed that grade 1–3 repair failures decreased from 6/143 (4.1%) to 3/141 (2.1%) and grade 1–3 meningitis rates decreased from 5 (3.5%) to 1 (0.7%) (p = 0.08). Prophylactic lumbar CSF drainage was used in only 4 cases (< 1%), was associated with a higher meningitis rate in grades 1–3 (25% vs 2%), and was discontinued in 2012. Comparison of the 2 epochs showed increase buttress use in the second, with use of a permanent buttress in grade 1 and 3 leaks increasing from 13% to 55% and 32% to 76%, respectively (p < 0.001), and use of autologous septal/keel bone as a permanent buttress in grade 1, 2, and 3 leaks increasing from 15% to 51% (p < 0.001).ConclusionsA graded approach to skull base repair after endonasal surgery remains valid in the endoscopic era. However, the technique has evolved significantly, with further reduction of postoperative CSF leak rates. These data suggest that buttresses are beneficial for repair of most grade 1 and 2 leaks and all grade 3 leaks. Similarly, pedicled flaps appear advantageous for grade 3 leaks, while CSF diversion may be unnecessary and a risk factor for meningitis. High BMI should prompt an aggressive multilayered repair strategy. Achieving repair failure and meningitis rates lower than 1% is a reasonable goal in endoscopic skull base tumor surgery.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.