Cargando…

Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?

Objectives  This article aims (1) to determine whether there is any difference in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rate after anterior skull base autologous fat reconstruction based on how the fat is prepared, and (2) to measure impact on surgical times by reconstruction type. Design  Translational an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wood, Joshua, Densky, Jaron, Boughter, John, Sebelik, Merry, Shires, Courtney
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5948101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29761066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1645886
_version_ 1783322492995108864
author Wood, Joshua
Densky, Jaron
Boughter, John
Sebelik, Merry
Shires, Courtney
author_facet Wood, Joshua
Densky, Jaron
Boughter, John
Sebelik, Merry
Shires, Courtney
author_sort Wood, Joshua
collection PubMed
description Objectives  This article aims (1) to determine whether there is any difference in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rate after anterior skull base autologous fat reconstruction based on how the fat is prepared, and (2) to measure impact on surgical times by reconstruction type. Design  Translational animal model surgical technique 3-arm trial, comparing two different methods of autologous fat skull base reconstruction versus a nonreconstructed control group. Setting  Animal study. Subjects  Adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Main Outcome Measures  Resolution of CSF rhinorrhea after repair of a surgically created anterior skull base defect. Results  Both wet (uncompressed) and dry (compressed) fat reconstruction of an anterior skull base defect demonstrated lower CSF leak rates than nonreconstructed defects. Dry fat reconstruction achieved significance in superiority of controlling CSF leak over no reconstruction (64% success vs. 31%); while wet fat reconstruction trended toward significance (50% vs. 31%). Reconstruction procedure time was longer than nonreconstructed controls, but there was no significant difference between type of fat preparation in surgical time. Conclusions  This study demonstrates that drying and compressing the fat graft improves autologous fat reconstruction success for anterior skull base defects, and does not add significantly to surgical time over nonprepared fat.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5948101
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59481012018-05-14 Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter? Wood, Joshua Densky, Jaron Boughter, John Sebelik, Merry Shires, Courtney J Neurol Surg Rep Objectives  This article aims (1) to determine whether there is any difference in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rate after anterior skull base autologous fat reconstruction based on how the fat is prepared, and (2) to measure impact on surgical times by reconstruction type. Design  Translational animal model surgical technique 3-arm trial, comparing two different methods of autologous fat skull base reconstruction versus a nonreconstructed control group. Setting  Animal study. Subjects  Adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Main Outcome Measures  Resolution of CSF rhinorrhea after repair of a surgically created anterior skull base defect. Results  Both wet (uncompressed) and dry (compressed) fat reconstruction of an anterior skull base defect demonstrated lower CSF leak rates than nonreconstructed defects. Dry fat reconstruction achieved significance in superiority of controlling CSF leak over no reconstruction (64% success vs. 31%); while wet fat reconstruction trended toward significance (50% vs. 31%). Reconstruction procedure time was longer than nonreconstructed controls, but there was no significant difference between type of fat preparation in surgical time. Conclusions  This study demonstrates that drying and compressing the fat graft improves autologous fat reconstruction success for anterior skull base defects, and does not add significantly to surgical time over nonprepared fat. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018-04 2018-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5948101/ /pubmed/29761066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1645886 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Wood, Joshua
Densky, Jaron
Boughter, John
Sebelik, Merry
Shires, Courtney
Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title_full Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title_fullStr Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title_full_unstemmed Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title_short Anterior Skull Base Reconstruction: Does Fat Preparation Matter?
title_sort anterior skull base reconstruction: does fat preparation matter?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5948101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29761066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1645886
work_keys_str_mv AT woodjoshua anteriorskullbasereconstructiondoesfatpreparationmatter
AT denskyjaron anteriorskullbasereconstructiondoesfatpreparationmatter
AT boughterjohn anteriorskullbasereconstructiondoesfatpreparationmatter
AT sebelikmerry anteriorskullbasereconstructiondoesfatpreparationmatter
AT shirescourtney anteriorskullbasereconstructiondoesfatpreparationmatter