Search

Objective: To determine in-hospital costs associated with performing an EEA to anterior skull base pathology and to identify drivers of cost variability for patients undergoing endoscopic anterior skull base surgery. Methods: All endoscopic anterior skull base surgeries performed over a period from January 1st, 2015 to October 24th, 2017 were evaluated. The electronic medical record was reviewed for patient factors, tumor characteristics, and cost variables associated with each hospital stay and univariate analysis was performed using Stata software. Results: An EEA was associated with an average total in-hospital cost of $44 545. Compared to patients undergoing a transsphenoidal approach to pituitary tumor resection, EEA patients incurred higher in-hospital costs across all variables including a total cost increase of $15 921 (95% confidence interval $5720-26 122, P =.002). Univariate analysis of all endoscopic anterior skull base surgery patients showed a cost increase of $30 616 associated with post-operative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak ($10 420-50 811, P =.004), $14 610 with post-operative diabetes insipidus (DI) ($4610-24 609, P =.004), and $11 522 with African-American patients relative to Caucasian patients ($3049-19 995, P =.008). Conclusions: Patients who undergo endoscopic EEA for resection of anterior skull base tumors typically incur greater in-hospital costs than patients undergoing a standard TSA. Post-operative complications such as CSF leak and DI, as well as ethnicity, are significant drivers of cost-variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction  Olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs) are often associated with loss of smell following resection. Loss of smell has a measurable impact on quality of life. Smell preservation has been previously described in open approaches for early stage or unilateral OGMs. Evidence of smell preservation in endoscopic approaches is lacking. Design  A multi-institutional retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients who underwent unilateral endoscopic endonasal resection of OGM. A gross total resection was achieved with preservation of the contralateral olfactory cleft and bulb. Olfactory function was assessed with a six-point olfactory symptom score and the Sniffin' Sticks 12-item smell identification test (SS-12). Contralateral olfactory bulb volume was measured on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Results  Four patients (age 42.0 ± 7.5, 75% female) were assessed. Olfactory function was assessed at 21.8 ± 5.6 months following surgery. All patients reported some degree of smell preservation (75% described a slight/mild impairment in smell or better). Olfactory identification was preserved with an SS-12 score of 9 ± 1.4 (anosmia defined as ≤6). The olfactory bulb volume was calculated to be 47.4 ± 15.9 mm 3 (normal >40 mm 3). Conclusion  Smell preservation is possible following unilateral endoscopic endonasal resection of carefully selected OGM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) are challenging tumors for surgical resection. Endoscopic endonasal (EE) approaches to these lesions have not been directly compared to open craniotomy in a controlled trial. Methods: We searched Medline and Embase online databases for English-language articles containing key words related to TSMs. Data were pooled, including 5 of our own patients reported here for the first time. Metaregression was used and a decision-analytical model was constructed to compare outcomes between open microsurgery and EE approaches. Results: The overall quality of life (QOL) was not significantly different between the approaches (p = 0.410); however, there were large differences in individual complication rates. The Monte Carlo simulation yielded an overall average QOL in craniotomy patients of 0.915 and in endoscopic patients of 0.952. Endoscopy had a higher CSF leak rate (26.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001) but a lower rate of injury to the optic apparatus (1.4 vs. 9.2%, p < 0.001) compared with craniotomy. The 3-year recurrence rates were not statistically different (p = 0.529). Conclusion: EE resection of TSMs appears to be a comparable alternative to traditional open microsurgical resection with respect to overall QOL based on available publications. A meaningful comparison of recurrence rates will require a longer follow-up. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic skull‐base surgery (ESBS) is employed in the management of diverse skull‐base pathologies. Paralleling the increased utilization of ESBS, the literature in this field has expanded rapidly. However, the rarity of these diseases, the inherent challenges of surgical studies, and the continued learning curve in ESBS have resulted in significant variability in the quality of the literature. To consolidate and critically appraise the available literature, experts in skull‐base surgery have produced the International Consensus Statement on Endoscopic Skull‐Base Surgery (ICAR:ESBS). Methods: Using previously described methodology, topics spanning the breadth of ESBS were identified and assigned a literature review, evidence‐based review or evidence‐based review with recommendations format. Subsequently, each topic was written and then reviewed by skull‐base surgeons in both neurosurgery and otolaryngology. Following this iterative review process, the ICAR:ESBS document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICAR:ESBS document addresses the role of ESBS in primary cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea, intradural tumors, benign skull‐base and orbital pathology, sinonasal malignancies, and clival lesions. Additionally, specific challenges in ESBS including endoscopic reconstruction and complication management were evaluated. Conclusion: A critical review of the literature in ESBS demonstrates at least the equivalency of ESBS with alternative approaches in pathologies such as CSF rhinorrhea and pituitary adenoma as well as improved reconstructive techniques in reducing CSF leaks. Evidence‐based recommendations are limited in other pathologies and these significant knowledge gaps call upon the skull‐base community to embrace these opportunities and collaboratively address these shortcomings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]