Search

The goal of this American Rhinologic Society expert practice statement (EPS) is to summarize the best available evidence for technical factors that optimize outcomes in skull base reconstruction following endoscopic skull base surgery for intradural pathologies. These topics include the use of free mucosal grafts versus vascularized pedicled nasoseptal flaps; the use of autologous versus synthetic grafts; and the roles of lumbar drains, dural sealants, and nasal packing. This EPS was developed following the recommended methodology and approval process as previously outlined. As there are a myriad of techniques and limited agreement on the accepted principles of skull base reconstruction, this EPS aims to summarize the existing evidence and provide clinically meaningful guidance on these divergent practices. Following a modified Delphi approach, five statements were developed, four of which reached consensus and one of which reached near consensus. These statements and the accompanying evidence are summarized along with an assessment of future needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are adverse effects after surgery, which may increase the risk of complications. Aprepitant is a neurokinin‐1 receptor blocker and has been shown to reduce chemotherapy‐related nausea and vomiting and PONV. However, its role in endoscopic skull base surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aprepitant in reducing PONV in endoscopic transsphenoidal (TSA) pituitary surgery. Methods: A retrospective chart review between July 2021 and January 2023 of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TSA was performed at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative aprepitant use. Two groups were matched based on known risk factors of PONV (age, sex, nonsmoking, and history of PONV). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of anti‐emetic use, length of stay, and postoperative cererebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Results: After matching, 48 patients were included in each group. The aprepitant group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting than the non‐aprepitant group (2.1% vs 22.9%, p = 0.002). The number of nausea episodes and anti‐emetic use decreased with aprepitant use (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea, length of stay, or postoperative CSF leak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aprepitant decreased the incidence of postoperative vomiting with odds ratio of 0.107. Conclusion: Aprepitant may serve as a useful preoperative treatment to reduce PONV in patients undergoing TSA. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact in other arenas of endoscopic skull base surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Postoperative management strategies for endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) vary widely because of limited evidence‐based guidance. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from January 1990 through February 2022 to examine 18 postoperative considerations for ESBS. Nonhuman studies, articles written in a language other than English, and case reports were excluded. Studies were assessed for levels of evidence, and each topic's aggregate grade of evidence was evaluated. Results: A total of 74 studies reporting on 18 postoperative practices were reviewed. Postoperative pain management, prophylactic antibiotics, and lumbar drain use had the highest grades of evidence (B). The literature currently lacks high quality evidence for a majority of the reviewed ESBS precautions. There were no relevant studies to address postoperative urinary catheter use and medical intracranial pressure reduction. Conclusion: The evidence for postoperative ESBS precautions is heterogeneous, scarce, and generally of low quality. Although this review identified the best evidence available in the literature, it suggests the urgent need for more robust evidence. Therefore, additional high‐quality studies are needed in order to devise optimal postoperative ESBS protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing endoscopic resection of neoplasms with both sinonasal and skull base involvement can develop chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) after treatment and may occasionally benefit from additional endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). We investigate risk factors and outcomes associated with revision ESS (rESS) after endoscopic skull‐base surgery (SBS) for neoplasms with combined sinonasal and skull base involvement. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with neoplasms with both sinonasal and skull base involvement who underwent endoscopic resection at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2004 through 2017 was performed. Eighty‐three patients were included. Main outcome measures included incidence and timing of revision surgery, Lund‐Mackay (LM) scores, and 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) scores. Results: rESS was performed in 21 (25%) cases, 15 (18%) of which were due to CRS. Time between initial resection and rESS was an average of 42 months (range, 6 to 142 months). Pre‐SBS and post‐SBS LM scores were not significantly different (5.0 vs 4.7, p = 0.640), although pre‐SBS and post‐SBS SNOT‐22 scores showed significant improvement (32.6 vs 24.5, p = 0.030). Malignant pathology correlated with need for rESS (odds ratio [OR] 5.07, p = 0.04), as well as treatment including chemotherapy (OR 5.10, p = 0.003) and radiation (OR 4.15, p = 0.013). Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients develop clinically significant sinusitis after endoscopic SBS for neoplasms with combined sinonasal and skull base involvement and may benefit from rESS. Intervention occurred, on average, 3.5 years after initial tumor resection. Malignant pathology, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy correlate with need for rESS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]