Cargando…
Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review
PURPOSE: Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) remains a frequent complication of endonasal approaches to pituitary and skull base tumours. Watertight skull base reconstruction is important in preventing CSFR. We sought to systematically review the current literature of available skul...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33973152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4 |
_version_ | 1783748268725895168 |
---|---|
author | Khan, Danyal Z. Ali, Ahmad M. S. Koh, Chan Hee Dorward, Neil L. Grieve, Joan Layard Horsfall, Hugo Muirhead, William Santarius, Thomas Van Furth, Wouter R. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H. Marcus, Hani J. |
author_facet | Khan, Danyal Z. Ali, Ahmad M. S. Koh, Chan Hee Dorward, Neil L. Grieve, Joan Layard Horsfall, Hugo Muirhead, William Santarius, Thomas Van Furth, Wouter R. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H. Marcus, Hani J. |
author_sort | Khan, Danyal Z. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) remains a frequent complication of endonasal approaches to pituitary and skull base tumours. Watertight skull base reconstruction is important in preventing CSFR. We sought to systematically review the current literature of available skull base repair techniques. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for studies (2000–2020) that (a) reported on the endonasal resection of pituitary and skull base tumours, (b) focussed on skull base repair techniques and/or postoperative CSFR risk factors, and (c) included CSFR data. Roles, advantages and disadvantages of each repair method were detailed. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where possible. RESULTS: 193 studies were included. Repair methods were categorised based on function and anatomical level. There was absolute heterogeneity in repair methods used, with no independent studies sharing the same repair protocol. Techniques most commonly used for low CSFR risk cases were fat grafts, fascia lata grafts and synthetic grafts. For cases with higher CSFR risk, multilayer regimes were utilized with vascularized flaps, gasket sealing and lumbar drains. Lumbar drain use for high CSFR risk cases was supported by a randomised study (Oxford CEBM: Grade B recommendation), but otherwise there was limited high-level evidence. Pooled CSFR incidence by approach was 3.7% (CI 3–4.5%) for transsphenoidal, 9% (CI 7.2–11.3%) for expanded endonasal, and 5.3% (CI 3.4–7%) for studies describing both. Further meaningful meta-analyses of repair methods were not performed due to significant repair protocol heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Modern reconstructive protocols are heterogeneous and there is limited evidence to suggest the optimal repair technique after pituitary and skull base tumour resection. Further studies are needed to guide practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8416859 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84168592021-09-22 Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review Khan, Danyal Z. Ali, Ahmad M. S. Koh, Chan Hee Dorward, Neil L. Grieve, Joan Layard Horsfall, Hugo Muirhead, William Santarius, Thomas Van Furth, Wouter R. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H. Marcus, Hani J. Pituitary Article PURPOSE: Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) remains a frequent complication of endonasal approaches to pituitary and skull base tumours. Watertight skull base reconstruction is important in preventing CSFR. We sought to systematically review the current literature of available skull base repair techniques. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for studies (2000–2020) that (a) reported on the endonasal resection of pituitary and skull base tumours, (b) focussed on skull base repair techniques and/or postoperative CSFR risk factors, and (c) included CSFR data. Roles, advantages and disadvantages of each repair method were detailed. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where possible. RESULTS: 193 studies were included. Repair methods were categorised based on function and anatomical level. There was absolute heterogeneity in repair methods used, with no independent studies sharing the same repair protocol. Techniques most commonly used for low CSFR risk cases were fat grafts, fascia lata grafts and synthetic grafts. For cases with higher CSFR risk, multilayer regimes were utilized with vascularized flaps, gasket sealing and lumbar drains. Lumbar drain use for high CSFR risk cases was supported by a randomised study (Oxford CEBM: Grade B recommendation), but otherwise there was limited high-level evidence. Pooled CSFR incidence by approach was 3.7% (CI 3–4.5%) for transsphenoidal, 9% (CI 7.2–11.3%) for expanded endonasal, and 5.3% (CI 3.4–7%) for studies describing both. Further meaningful meta-analyses of repair methods were not performed due to significant repair protocol heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Modern reconstructive protocols are heterogeneous and there is limited evidence to suggest the optimal repair technique after pituitary and skull base tumour resection. Further studies are needed to guide practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4. Springer US 2021-05-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8416859/ /pubmed/33973152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Khan, Danyal Z. Ali, Ahmad M. S. Koh, Chan Hee Dorward, Neil L. Grieve, Joan Layard Horsfall, Hugo Muirhead, William Santarius, Thomas Van Furth, Wouter R. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H. Marcus, Hani J. Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title | Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title_full | Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title_short | Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
title_sort | skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33973152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khandanyalz skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT aliahmadms skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT kohchanhee skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT dorwardneill skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT grievejoan skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT layardhorsfallhugo skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT muirheadwilliam skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT santariusthomas skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT vanfurthwouterr skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT zamanipoornajafabadiamirh skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview AT marcushanij skullbaserepairfollowingendonasalpituitaryandskullbasetumourresectionasystematicreview |