4.3 Article

Transorbital neuroendoscopic surgery for the treatment of skull base lesions

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 24, Issue -, Pages 99-104

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.07.021

Keywords

CSF leak; Endoscope; Neuroendoscopy; Neurosurgery; Pituitary; Skull base; Transorbital

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R21 EB016122] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [T32 DC000018] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transorbital neuroendoscopic surgery (TONES) is a relatively new technique that not only allows access to the contents of the orbit but also the intracranial compartment, including the anterior cranial fossa, middle fossa and lateral cavernous sinus. In this study, we aimed to retrospectively review the largest experience to our knowledge with regards to surgical outcomes of skull base pathologies treated with a TONES procedure. Forty patients (aged 3-89 years) underwent 45 TONES procedures between the years of 2006-2013. Pathologies were cerebrospinal fluid leak repair (n = 16), traumatic fracture (n = 8), tumor (n = 11), meningoencephalocele (n = 5), hematoma (n =1), and infection (n = 4). Three patients had a persistent complication at 3 months, including a case each of enophthalmos (unnoticed by patient), epiphora (delayed presentation at 2 months requiring dacryocystorhinostomy), and ptosis (improved at 1 year). Surgical success was achieved in all patients. Of special import, there were no cases of visual decline, diplopia, or stroke. There was no mortality. To our knowledge this is the first study and largest experience of TONES (level 4 evidence) to detail outcomes with respect to skull base pathologies. Our results indicate that TONES procedures can be performed with minimal morbidity. Further studies are needed to assess equivalency with craniotomy based approaches though this initial report is encouraging. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available