4.3 Article

Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea following trans-sphenoidal pituitary macroadenoma surgery: Experience-from 592 patients

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
Volume 110, Issue 6, Pages 570-579

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2008.02.017

Keywords

cerebrospinal fluid leak; cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea; pituitary adenoma; trans-sphenoidal; post-operative complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine the incidence, risk factors, diagnostic procedures, and management of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks following trans-sphenoidal pituitary macroadenoma surgery. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 592 patients. Results: Intra- and post-operative CSF leaks occurred in 14.2 and 4.4% of patients, respectively. Surgical revision, tumor consistency, and tumor margins were independently associated with intra-operative leaks, while the tumor size, consistency, and margins were risk factors of post-operative leaks. The intra-operative leak rate of ACTH adenomas was greater than all other types combined; the incidence of postoperative CSF leaks was highest for FSH adenomas. There were no significant differences among various techniques and we achieved an initial repair success rates of 83.3 and 92.9% for intra and post-operative CSF leaks, respectively. Of the 26 patients with post-operative CSF leaks, five were complicated by meningitis and four by post-infectious hydrocephalus which required ventriculoperitoneal shunts. Conclusions: CSF leaks have a propensity to occur in cases with fibrous tumors or tumors with indistinct margin and may have some relationship with the tumor type. Endoscopic and microscopic repairs were shown to be effective techniques in managing these types of leaks. Post-infectious hydrocephalus may influence the outcome of the repair and ventriculoperitoneal shunts were necessary in some cases. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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